Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PROCEDURE.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Dennis Herbert): Mr. Speaker, in regard to Private Business usually taken immediately after Prayers, may I ask whether you have considered the Procedure in putting to the House Promoters' Amendments on Consideration and Third Reading of Private Bills and Lords Amendments to Private Bills, and whether you propose to adopt any different method in putting the question of such Amendments to the House?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I have given this matter consideration, and I propose, with the leave of the House, to make some alterations in the Procedure. As my statement on that subject is rather long I propose, for the convenience of the House, to make it after Questions instead of now.

Later—

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the alteration in Procedure, I desire to make this statement to the House.
I propose in future when the Order Paper contains notice of (1) Amendments on Consideration (2) Amendments on Third Reading or (3) Lords Amendments, to Private Bills, to put such Amendments to the House in the single Question, "That these Amendments be made," or, in the case of Lords Amendments," That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments." To preserve the rights of Members when the Order Paper contains notice that such Amendments will be taken (the Amendments not being set out on the Order Paper) an asterisk will refer to a footnote stating:
A copy of these Amendments can be seen in the Committee and Private Bill Office.
Then when the Title of the Bill is read out from the Table by the Clerk, the Chair

man of Ways and Means, on rising to move, will make a statement to the House such as may be appropriate to the circumstances, as, for example, that they are only of a drafting nature, or that they appear to be unobjectionable, and I shall then put the single Question, "That the Amendments be made," or, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments."
It will remain, as is at present the case, the duty of the Chairman of Ways and Means to have any of these Amendments printed on the Order Paper if, for special reason, he considers the attention of the House should be drawn specially to such Amendments; in the past it has very seldom been necessary to print such Amendments on the Order Paper, and it is not anticipated that it will often be the case in the future. Hon. Members should understand that this only applies to Amendments of which notice has been given by the Agents for the Bill, and does not apply to Amendments proposed by hon. Members, of which hon. Members must give notice on the Order Paper as hitherto.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement concerning the position of the Government of the Republic of China set up by the Japanese military authorities at Nanking?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): An administration calling itself the "Reformed Government of the Republic of China" was inaugurated at Nanking on 28th March. According to a manifesto issued at the time, the new Government is a provisional régime with authority over the two provinces of Kiangsu and Chekiang, and will be amalgamated with the Provisional Government established at Peking, as soon as through communication is established on the TientsinPukow and Lunghai railways.

Mr. Strauss: I take it that that is really a Japanese-controlled Government?

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Prime Minister what efforts have been made during 1938 to secure any understanding with the Japanese Government in Tokyo regarding British interests in Hong Kong and South China; and what were the results of such efforts?

Mr. Butler: There have been no serious hostilities in South China, and consequently only minor interference with British interests there or at Hong Kong. Such matters as have arisen have been the subject of representations. A certain measure of satisfaction has been obtained and certain matters are still under discussion.

Mr. Strauss: May we take it that there has been no general understanding arrived at?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any report on the work of the English-speaking medical unit in China; whether they have adequate supplies of clothing and medicaments; and how far such supplies are provided by the Lord Mayor's Fund?

Mr. Butler: The English-speaking unit works under the direction of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, to whom it reports and by whom its medical and other supplies are furnished. It has no connection with the Lord Mayor's Fund.

Mr. Mathers: Does that mean that in the event of any shortage of supplies this medical unit could not look to His Majesty's Government for any assistance?

Mr. Butler: No, it is under the League, and we are awaiting a report from the League.

Commander Marsden: asked the Prime Minister the total amount of claims against the Japanese Government for compensation for war damage filed by British subjects with the British consular authorities in China?

Mr. Butler: I am unable to give exact figures, since the details of many claims are not finally determined. According to the reports which have so far reached me, the amount at present is in the region of £300,000.

Commander Marsden: Can my hon. Friend give any indication as to

when we may expect a settlement of these claims, many of which concern small traders whose businesses have been entirely ruined?

Mr. Butler: I hope as soon as they have been thoroughly investigated and submitted.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the attempts of the Japanese authorities in North China to set up a Japanese wool monopoly in respect of wool produced in Mongolia, Hsinchiang and Kansu, to the exclusion of British buyers; and whether he will protest to the Japanese Government against this interference with free trade in wool?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. An organisation is reported to have been formed at Kalgan for the purchase and export of sheep and camel wool, but it is not yet clear to what extent British interests will be affected. His Majesty's Ambassador in China has been instructed to watch the situation closely and to report any developments which might call for representations to the Japanese authorities.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that the stock of wool in the hands of Chinese and British merchants has been sealed, bought by the Japanese at their own price and shipped by Japanese steamers away from the holders, and will he protest against such action through His Majesty's Ambassador?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to watch this situation closely, and I think the hon. Gentleman can be assured that that will be the case.

Mr. George Griffiths: Do the Government expect that Japan is going yonder for the benefit of Britain? Nothing of the kind.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the excesses and outrages which have been committed by Japanese troops during the Japanese conquest of Central China; and whether His Majesty's Government propose to make any protest to the Japanese Government?

Mr. Butler: A number of reports of excesses committed by Japanese troops at Nanking, Shanghai and Hangchow



have been received. These, however, all relate to events antecedent in date to the question put by the hon. Member on 7th February last. No official representations have been made by His Majesty's Government, but the Japanese themselves dispatched a high officer to Nanking and Hangchow early in February, and I understand that as a result conditions have now improved.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not a fact that only recently an outrage was committed against a British subject in Shanghai?

Mr. Butler: I have given the hon. Member the information in my possession, and I trust that the dispatch of this high officer may prevent any future incidents of this sort.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (JEWS).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether he will obtain from His Majesty's Representative at Bucharest information regarding the treatment of the Jewish minority by the present Rumanian Government; and how far it is in conformity with the principles of the Minorities Treaty of which His Majesty's Government is a guarantor?

Mr. Butler: This is a subject upon which His Majesty's Representative would under standing instructions report to my Noble Friend in due course; but it will be appreciated that, as the new Rumanian Government only took office on the evening of 3oth March, it is as yet a little early to obtain information as to their intentions in this matter. The second part of the question does not, therefore, yet arise.

Mr. Adams: Will the Minister supply the information asked for in the second part of the question in due course, or shall I put down another question?

Mr. Butler: I think the hon. Member had better wait and put down another question later.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not true to say that the Assembly of the League pledged themselves to look after the minority in every European country?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what action the British Government

are taking, as a signatory to minority treaties, in connection with the treatment of Jews in Rumania; whether it is proposed to take any step to bring the matter before the Permanent Court of International Justice; and whether, in particular, in the case of Bessarabia, the transfer of which to Rumania was approved by the Ambassadors Conference on 20th October, 1920, and ratified by Great Britain, he is taking any action other than through the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the late Foreign Secretary to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on 14th February last. As regards the second part of the question, I do not consider that the step referred to by the hon. Member would in present circumstances lead to useful results. As regards the third part of the question, the treaty between the Principal Allied Powers and Rumania respecting Bessarabia of 28th October, 1920, is not in force. It would, however, add nothing to the rights of His Majesty's Government as a signatory of the Minorities Treaty with Rumania.

Mr. Mander: Is it the case that the British Government are taking certain steps in accordance with their treaty rights to secure better treatment for the Jews in. Rumania?

Mr. Butler: It is for any minority which feels itself suffering an injustice to make an appeal to the League, and the machinery of the League would then operate.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that quite apart from the League we have treaty obligations, as indicated in this question?

Mr. Butler: We have certain rights under the Minorities Treaty to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that many British subjects have been repatriated from the United States of America during the past two years; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact of the constant dismissal of British subjects from employ


ment in the United States of America because of their nationality; and w hat general instructions have been given to His Majesty's Consuls in that country to provide facilities for dismissed men who are without resources to return to their country of origin?

Mr. Butler: I have no information to show that many British subjects have been repatriated or dismissed as suggested by the hon. Member. His Majesty's Consuls have standing authority to repatriate distressed British subjects in suitable cases at the public cost.

Mr. Day: Will the Minister ask His Majesty's Ambassador to report?

Mr. Butler: I have already given the hon. Member the information in my possession.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN REFUGEES.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to secure for racial minorities in Germany full civil liberties, either by direct negotiations or through the machinery of the League of Nations, in view of the difficulties created for other countries by the number of refugees leaving Germany?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government re already playing their part in such international action as is possible for dealing with the problem of refugees from Germany, and do not consider that it would be feasible to take steps on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mander: In view of the interest being shown by the British Government in racial minorities in certain countries, is it not their duty to do all they can to secure a discontinuance of the gross cruelty being inflicted on minorities in Germany itself?

Mr. Butler: It is for them to do what they can, but I do not think it would be feasible to take the steps suggested.

Mr. Mander: Have the Government in mind any alternative steps?

Colonel Nathan: What is the position of Germany as regards the obligations of Austria under the Minorities Treaty, to which Austria was a party?

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister what countries have accepted the invitation of the United States Government to concert methods for providing assistance to political and Jewish refugees from Austria; and whether it is proposed to ask Parliament to make a grant for the purpose?

Mr. Butler: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the 15 countries which have replied favourably to the invitation of the United States Government. As regards the second part of the question, it is a part of the United States proposal that any financing of the emergency emigration to which the proposal refers should be undertaken by private organisations within the respective countries. The question of a Parliamentary grant does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Mander: Can my hon. Friend say whether any countries have refused to take action?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that question, but I am circulating a list of those which have accepted.

Mr. Mander: Can we have an assurance that the Government will make the best possible use of this opportunity of co-operation with the United States of America?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Following are the countries:


The Argentine.
Haiti.


Belgium.
Mexico


Brazil.
Nicaragua


Colombia.
Paraguay.


The Dominican Republic.
Peru.


Salvador.


France.
Sweden.


Guatemala.
Uruguay.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the question of Austrian refugees receiving the protection of the League of Nations?

Mr. Butler: I regret that I am still not in a position to make a statement on this question, but I hope to be able to do so at a very early date.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jews from Vienna and other parts of Austria landed in Palestine or in any mandated territory since 12th March?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I have not the information that would enable me to reply to this question. As regards Palestine, the conditions under which immigrants can obtain admission into the country are well known to the House. They apply to Jews from Austria no less than from other parts of the world.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Parker: asked the Prime Minister what guarantees he had been given for the evacuation of German and Italian troops and technicians from Spain; and whether he proposes to occupy Minorca and other strategic points until this evacuation is completed?

Mr. Butler: As regards the first part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that on 4th April, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson), I stated that the British formula for the withdrawal of foreign volunteers had been accepted in principle by both the Italian and German Governments. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 21st March to a question by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks).

Mr. Parker: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it would be more desirable to have some concrete guarantees?

Oral Answers to Questions — MADAGASCAR (JEWISH IMMIGRATION).

Captain Alan Graham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will ascertain

Ages at the time of promotion to Acting Sub-Lieutenant, 1.9.36
Class of Certificates.
Promotion Marks.
Period to serve as sub-Lieutenant before promotion to Lieutenant.
Seniority as Lieutenant and ages on that date.
Age




Seamanship.
Greenwich.
Greenwich.
Navigation.
Gunnery.
Torpedo.
Signals.







Years.
Months.

Part I.
Part II.





Months.
Date.
Years.
Months.


23
6
3rd
1st
2nd
2nd
1st
2nd
3rd
11
22½
16.11.38
25
8½


22
11
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
3rd
2nd
13
19½
16.10.38
25
0½


22.
2
1st
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
1st
2nd
17
19½
16. 8.38
24.
1½


22
5
1st
2nd
3rd
1st
1st
1st
1st
21
17½
16. 6.38
24.
2½

Owing to the change in the regulations governing the periods officers have to serve as sub-lieutenant it may be necessary to make certain adjustments in the seniority shown, in order to keep these

through the proper channels from the Government of the French Republic how far the island of Madagascar could be opened to Jewish immigration and development, thus relieving Palestine of further congestion and friction consequent upon a renewed exodus of Jews from Central and Eastern Europe?

Mr. Butler: I understand that the French Government have had under consideration the possibility of encouraging Jewish immigration into Madagascar. While His Majesty's Government would naturally be sympathetic to any proposal for such immigration which had the approval of the French Government, they do not contemplate approaching the French Government in the matter.

Mr. Mander: Do the Jews want to go there?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

PROMOTION.

Mr. Parker: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now state the ages, on the date of their promotion, of the four sub-lieutenants, ex-lower deck, commissioned in 1936; the certificates obtained in their various examinations; the accelerated promotion obtained; and the dates they are due for promotion to lieutenants and their ages on that date?

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper): As the information requested involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

and other officers in the same relative position to officers whose acceleration has been calculated under the old regulations. Such adjustment cannot yet be determined.

OFFICERS' MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will cause further inquiries to be made from naval officers below the rank of captain as to their views upon the proposed scheme of naval marriage allowance?

Mr. Cooper: I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by making further inquiries at this stage, and I am hopeful that when the scheme is fully understood it will meet with general approval

Sir A. Southby: When the White Paper is brought out will it be submitted to the officers of the Fleet for their consideration, in view of the fact that a very real feeling exists among junior officers that they were never consulted?

Mr. Cooper: I will endeavour to see that copies of the White Paper are made available for officers of the Fleet.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in the case of officers who will have their basic rate of pay reduced by 2S. a day in accordance with the marriage allowance scheme, these officers will receive an extra 2s. a day lodging allowance when they take up an appointment where service quarters are not provided for them?

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider such modification in the proposed marriage allowance scheme for naval officers as will ensure that no married officer ashore shall suffer loss in his total emoluments owing to the introduction of the scheme?

Mr. Cooper: I am happy to inform my hon. and gallant Friends that the orders which will be published to the Fleet on Friday will contain a provision that an increased rate of marriage allowance will be payable in certain instances to ensure that no married officer ashore will suffer financially as a consequence of the scheme for marriage allowance.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, am I to understand that a married officer who takes up an appointment where there are no Service quarters will receive both married allowance and lodging allowance? He is entitled to both those

allowances for perfectly definite and specific reasons.

Mr. Cooper: The arrangement that has been made is that in any case where an officer receives less under the new scheme than he would under the old scheme, his marriage allowance will be increased so that he will be equally well-off, and will not suffer.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Does that mean that he will receive his lodging allowance because he is entitled to it? Will he get his lodging allowance as lodging allowance and his marriage allowance as marriage allowance?

Mr. McGovern: Subject to a means test.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: When is the White Paper being issued, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in general, the married officers express satisfaction with the concession that has just been made, even though the bachelors look upon it as a heavy tax upon a happy position?

Mr. Cooper: I cannot at present say exactly on what date the White Paper will be issued, but it will be issued as soon as possible. Under this scheme every married officer afloat will be better off than he was before, and no married officer ashore or afloat, can be worse off. The only people who could complain are the bachelor officers, to whom my hon. and gallant Friend referred, and I would like to say, to their credit, that no single complaint has come from them.

Mr. Mathers: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to give equal satisfaction to naval ratings under the age of 26 who are married?

MARRIED OFFICERS.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the proportion of married officers of the rank of lieutenant-commander, commander, and captain, to the total number of officers of those ranks over the age of 30 years?

Mr. Cooper: The percentages of married officers of the ranks of lieutenant-commander, commander and captain to the total number of officers of those ranks over the age of 30 years, are approximately 73, 85, and 85 respectively.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the unmarried officer helping to keep the married officer, in addition to having to pay his marriage allowance?

LODGING ALLOWANCE (PETTY OFFICERS AND MEN).

Commander Marsden: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many petty officers and men of His Majesty's Navy are receiving lodging allowance in the home ports?

Mr. Cooper: The number of petty officers and men borne on the books of ships and establishments at the home ports who are receiving lodging allowance is 684.

Commander Marsden: Will these petty officers and men of the lower deck get marriage allowance and allowance for children, in addition to their lodging allowance?

Mr. Cooper: Yes.

Sir A. Southby: If it is just and fair that the lower deck should receive both lodging allowance and marriage allowance, why is it unjust and unfair that officers should receive the same treatment?

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Can the right hon. Gentleman say that nobody on the lower deck will be worse off as a result of the operation of these schemes?

Mr. Cooper: Nobody on the lower deck will be worse off. The pay of the naval officer was settled after the War at a higher rate than the pay of the other Services, and was supposed to take into account a certain allowance for marriage.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Arising out of that question——

Mr. Speaker: Lieut.-Commander Fletcher.

DESTROYERS.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will direct the appropriate officers of the naval staff to examine the position as regards the strength of the Navy in destroyers with a view to reconsidering the advisability of increasing the building programme of these ships?

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether further consideration has now been given to the desirability of making plans for

increasing destroyer construction; and whether he is yet in a position to make any statement on this subject?

Mr. Cooper: The Naval Staff have under constant review the strength of the Fleet in all categories of ships. I am not at present in a position to add anything to the announcement that has already been made with regard to this year's construction programme.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman study again the expressions of opinion made on this subject in all quarters of the House during the Debate on the Navy Estimates, and consider whether there is not a case for increasing the number of destroyers?

Mr. Cooper: I have carefully studied the expressions of opinion in that Debate.

Mr. Kirkwood: Might I ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, seeing that he has given so much consideration to the officers, whether he will give as much sympathetic consideration to the operative engineers when their case comes before him?

Mr. Speaker: That question is not relevant to the main question in this case, which relates to destroyers.

Mr. Kirkwood: I know that Sir, but I wanted to get that question in.

ENGINEERING COLLEGE, KEYHAM.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the unsuitable situation of the Royal Naval Engineering College at Keyham, he will remove the establishment to healthier surroundings enjoying the normal amenities of an educational establishment?

Mr. Cooper: The removal of the Royal Naval Engineering College to better surroundings has been under consideration for some time and negotiations are at present in progress for the purchase of a new site.

Viscountess Astor: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman considers that Keyham is unhealthy?

Mr. Cooper: No, I do not think it unhealthy, but I think that from many points of view it is undesirable.

CINEMATOGRAPH EQUIPMENT (SHIPS).

Mr. Day: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of British warships now in course of construction that are being fitted with talking cinematograph apparatus and the number not so fitted; and what arrangements are made for the regular change of films during the time these warships are at sea?

Mr. Cooper: All ships under construction above and including the category of gunboat are being fitted with equipment for sound reproduction for training and instructional purposes. This equipment will be suitable for the reproduction of sound films, and arrangements will be made to enable the ship's company to use it for cinematograph entertainment. Plans are now being made to provide a regular change of films.

Mr. Day: Will the ships' companies who use this equipment have to pay hirage fee?

Mr. Cooper: No, but they will pay for the use of the film.

Mr. Day: Had they not previously to do so?

DINGHIES.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement concerning the provision of racing dinghies for the use of the Navy; what craft are being supplied; at what cost; and by whom they were built?

Mr. Cooper: With a view to stimulating interest in sailing a 14-foot dinghy of similar design to that adopted by the Royal Naval Sailing Association has been introduced and will be supplied generally to all ships as they become available. The boats are obtained by competitive tender from various firms of boat builders on the Admiralty list, but it is not in the public interest to disclose contract prices.

Commander Marsden: Are these racing dinghies built to an international standard?

Mr. Cooper: I must have notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Will they replace the r6-foot dinghies at present issued?

COPPERSMITHS' WAGES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that 27½; per cent. of the coppersmiths engaged at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory at Greenock and the supplementary establishment at Alexandria are receiving 4s. 10½d. per week less than the standard rate paid to such workers in the Scottish area; and whether he will take steps to have this inequality removed and the standard rate paid to these Greenock and Alexandria coppersmiths?

Mr. Cooper: It is the policy of the Admiralty to apply common standards of pay and conditions of employment to all workpeople serving in their industrial establishments at home rather than to adopt for each particular trade in each particular district those current in corresponding employment outside. In accordance with this policy the rates of pay of coppersmiths in the Admiralty establishments at Greenock and Alexandria are the same as those of coppersmiths in His Majesty's dockyards and compare favourably with the generality of rates paid in comparable industries elsewhere. Having regard to the Admiralty policy on wage regulation, I am unable to accept the suggestion that coppersmiths at Greenock and Alexandria should alone be singled out for special treatment.

Mr. Gibson: As the standard rate of pay in those districts is insisted upon in the case of sub-contractors, does it not seem a little odd that a lower rate of pay should be available for the workers in the torpedo factories?

Mr. Cooper: I have explained the principle to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It has been suggested that if the workers in the torpedo factories have a grievance they should bring it up before the council.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the statement made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Gibson) that coppersmiths are paid about 5s. less than anywhere else, and will he rectify it if he finds that it is the case?

Mr. Cooper: I have explained the position to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

NON-INDUSTRIAL WORKERS (HOSPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many non-industrial workers at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock, and in the Admiralty service generally, will, respectively, by virtue of the recent decision, now be able to avail themselves of the new facilities to have their contributions for hospital purposes collected, by arrangement, by way of deduction from their pay.

Mr. Cooper: All non-industrial workers in Admiralty service at home will be able to have their contribution for hospital purposes deducted from their pay as soon as the new plan comes into force. The number involved is approximately 10,000, which includes about 200 at the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory, Greenock.

Mr. Gibson: Will the right hon. Gentleman expedite as much as possible the coming into force of this arrangement?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

MOTOR TORPEDO BOATS (INQUIRY).

Mr. Ammon: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is able to make a statement regarding the inquiry into the Power Boat Company contracts?

Mr. Cooper: I have nothing to add at present to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 31st March, but I hope to be able to make a full statement on this matter before the Easter Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD.

PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYÉS' PETITION.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that early last year a petition to the Governor of Trinidad on the subject of industrial conditions of public works employés from their trade union was referred to detectives of the Criminal Investigation Department, and that the petitioners were summoned to the police station and questioned on matter irrelevant to the petition; whether this is the practice in respect to such petitions; and, if so, on what grounds it is justified?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have received a report on this subject from the Officer Administering the Government of Trinidad. As it is rather long I will, with the

hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Paling: Will the recommendation relating to trade unions made by the commission recently in Trinidad apply to public works employés?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The petition as to the conditions of public works employés was received from four persons calling themselves a union.

Mr. Creech Jones: Did not they sign the petition on behalf of the union?

Mr. Paling: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that detectives will not be employed on such work in the future?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. When four unknown persons claim to represent a union which is not registered and the existence of which is not known, it is necessary to make inquiries as to who they are and whom they represent.

Following is the report:
The Officer Administering the Government of Trinidad reports that in December, 1936, a petition addressed to the late Governor and signed by four persons was received from an organisation styled 'The Workers' Association Committee, Public Works Department.' This organisation was not registered as a trade union and nothing was known of it in the Department. The petition was referred to the police for inquiries as to the identity and bona fidesof the Committee, and records show that inquiry was made from workers on that matter only. It was ascertained that the Committee was a very loose organisation which could not be regarded as representing more than a few workers. The petitioners were advised to submit their representations through the Head of the Department.
On the 15th March, 1937, a further petition was submitted by the same Committee through the Head of the Department. Their representations were considered and replied to.
On the 3rd September, 1937, the same Committee was granted permission to form a trade union styled the 'Public Works Workers Trade Union' and the Union was registered on the 26th November, 1937.
It is not the practice to refer petitions to the police unless the identity and bona fidesof the petitioners are in doubt, as in the case mentioned.

OIL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps have been taken to secure the successful exploitation of oil concessions over the sea-bed within the territorial waters of Trinidad?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In June, 1936, the Government of Trinidad issued a gazette notice inviting applications within six months for the grant of exploration licences over marine areas in the territorial waters of the Colony. Applications were received from a number of oil companies, and after consideration of all the issues involved the Governor, with my concurrence, informed the companies that it had been provisionally decided that the entire area thus available for oil development should be explored and developed as a single unit by one joint operating company. The companies were accordingly invited to enter upon discussions with one another for the formation of a joint operating company, but their proposals for this purpose have not yet been received.

Sir Joseph Nall: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that this is done under British control?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: British Controlled Oilfields is one of the companies that have applied. There are a good many other companies besides British Controlled operating in Trinidad.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Do they pay royalties for this oil?

Mr. Robinson: How soon does my right hon. Friend expect the joint operating company to be formed?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am waiting to hear from the various companies that have applied for rights to bore within territorial waters.

Sir J. Nall: May I point out that, in speaking of British control, I was not naming a particular company, but meant British interests as such?

KENYA (ABYSSINIAN REFUGEES).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he, is in a position to give the House any further information with regard to the numbers and condition of Abyssinian refugees in Kenya?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: According to information supplied last November, the number of these refugees in Kenya is 6,181. I have no very recent report on their condition, but, in a report prepared at the end of October last by the Medical

Officer in charge of the camp, it was stated that, as a result of the measures taken by the authorities in Kenya, a great improvement had taken place in the health of the refugees, especially of the children.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a more recent report, in view of the recent bad condition prevailing among the refugees?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The report is a very full one, with photographs and all the rest. If the hon. Member would like to see it, I think he would feel that every effort has been made.

Mr. White: May I assume from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that it is not impossible to come to any final decision as to the future of these people?

Captain Cazalet: Who is paying the cost of this—the Colony or the Home Government?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have recently introduced a Supplementary Estimate for this very. purpose.

NYASALAND (LABOUR RECRUITMENT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether further recruitment of Africans for the Rand in South Africa has been agreed to in Nyasaland with the chamber of mines; and whether the recruiting convention of the International Labour Office has been ratified in respect to Nyasaland?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It has been agreed with the Transvaal Chamber of Mines that the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association should be allowed to recruit up to a maximum of 8,500 natives in Nyasaland during 1938 and the first four months of 1939, for a further experimental period of one year's employment. The International Labour Recruiting Convention has riot yet been ratified by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Creech Jones: Does that mean that, in the event of men being recruited, travelling allowances will be paid to them when they are transferred?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As regards the experimental period, understand that,


among other conditions, the Chamber of Mines agreed to meet the whole cost of transporting recruits to Johannesburg from their homes.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will satisfactory arrangements be made with regard to health conditions?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir.

TANGANYIKA (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the report of the committee appointed to consider and advise on questions relating to the supply and welfare of native labour in the Tanganyika territory; if so, has he considered the recommendations; and what action is being taken in the territory in respect to recruiting, health conditions, penal sanctions, and protection of labour?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Draft legislation is being prepared to deal comprehensively with the committee's recommendations, and a Labour Inspectorate has already been instituted.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will proper attention be paid to health standards in view of the rapid deterioration in recent years?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

TOBAGO (PRAEDIAL LARCENY).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statement made by the acting warden magistrate of Tobago that he intends to order punishment by the cat for any person convicted of praedial larceny for the second time; whether this conforms with the policy of His Majesty's Government; and whether he will take steps to abolish this type of punishment for such offences?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. I understand that such a statement was made as a deterrent, but this is not in conformity with the policy of His Majesty's Government. As long ago as 1918 the then Governor of Trinidad was informed that the use of the "cat" in the case of corporal punishment inflicted for certain

offences connected with praedial larceny should be discontinued, and a birch, light tamarind rod or cane used instead. This ruling has constantly been observed in the colony. All sentences of flogging with the "cat" (for any offence) have to be referred to the Governor for his approval before they are carried out. No such sentences for praedial larceny have in fact been awarded by magistrates during the last five years.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that this form of larceny directly arises out of hunger; and would it not be better to provide food for these hungry people? Further, what steps are being taken in order to censure this particular warden magistrate for uttering such a threat, which, I understand, was entirely illegal and unconstitutional?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I have given my answer to-day. With regard to the other part, I would point out that there is praedial larceny and praedial larceny, and sentences of this kind are never given unless it is a case of malicious damage, and then not for a first offence. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is praedial larceny? "] Praedial larceny is the destruction of a smallholder's crop.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it would be useful at least to intimate to this warden magistrate that the Secretary of State disapproves of the threat which he recently made?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not for the Executive to express disapproval of magistrates in their exercise of legal functions. It is not done here, and I should be 10th to do it. I have given my answer.

Mr. Macquisten: Does praedial larceny mean stealing the other fellow's vegetables?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes.

Mr. Macquisten: Then who would not man-handle a man who robbed his garden? Of course he would.

AIRCRAFT (SABOTAGE).

Mr. Day: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action the


Government propose to take against the persons suspected of sabotage of various aircraft now in the course of construction; and what has been the approximate loss in money value and / or loss of time caused in the delivery of such aircraft through those acts?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Earl Winterton): As regards the first part of the question, I cannot al present add anything to my previous statement. Police investigations are still proceeding. As regards the second part, detailed figures are not available, but the actual loss, whether in time or money, has been very small.

Mr. Day: Can the Noble Lord say whether a reply has been received from the firm affected, to whom a communication was sent asking for further particulars?

Earl Winterton: More than one firm is affected.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster bear in mind that the workpeople are becoming a bit sick of this constant reiteration of these charges, that the amount of damage is infinitesimal compared with the output, and that the workpeople are quite pleased to co-operate in order that the maximum amount of investigation shall take place?

Earl Winterton: I have already made it clear that I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I think that outside an exaggerated emphasis has been laid on this matter.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the experience of the hon. Member for Dunbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and myself, would the Minister allow us to participate in any investigation?

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order. The question was thrown across the House just now as to whether the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) and I were both guilty of sabotage. This is a very serious business. I do not want anybody named at all, but I wish to emphasise on behalf of the engineers of Britain that this idea of sabotage has got to stop, because, as I have said in the House before, there never was a more patriotic section of the community. This has to stop at once.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

RE-ENLISTMENT.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that leading aircraftmen and skilled workmen of Group I, who have served for 10 years in the Royal Air Force at home and overseas, are now being refused an opportunity to re-enlist to complete 24 years' service, while men of the same group and trade qualifications with no Air Force experience are being advertised for and enlisted; and whether he can give any reason for this refusal?

Earl Winterton: The numbers of airmen in Group I who can be accepted for re-engagement for a further 12 years service depend on requirements from time to time in non-commissioned and warrant ranks as calculated for a number of years ahead, but fresh enlistments must take place continually in order to fill the junior posts. At the present time all such airmen, provided they are suitable, may, if they desire, continue their service either by re-engagement for 12 years so far as requirements allow or by the extension of their engagements for shorter periods; a considerable majority are, in fact, retained to complete 12 years further service. It will be appreciated that while every effort is made to extend the service of suitable men, a constant flow of fresh recruits is necessary for service purposes.

AEROPLANE WRECKAGE.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any evidence connecting the wreckage of the plane found on 22nd March near Norway with the suspected sabotage in the Royal Air Force factories?

Earl Winterton: No, Sir.

Miss Wilkinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that certain activities of a foreign Power in this country have no connection with this?

Earl Winterton: I think the hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension in this matter. There has been no sabotage at any Air Force station. This particular aeroplane has been at an Air Force station for some considerable time.

Miss Wilkinson: Has there been an inquiry as to why the plane was lost?

Earl Winterton: Naturally, there has been an inquiry; but that has nothing to do with sabotage. There has been no sabotage at an Air Force station.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been freely stated in the Press that sabotage was suspected? Does that bear the sign-manual of Ministerial opinion?

Earl Winterton: No, Sir. I must say that I cannot be responsible for wild statements appearing in the Press.

EX-OFFICERS EMERGENCY RESERVE.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Royal Air Force Ex-Officers Reserve has official recognition; whether the undertaking of its members to accept service in the event of war is an undertaking regarded as binding by the Air Ministry; and for what reason an annual subscription of 10s. is required of those giving such an undertaking?

Earl Winterton: The Royal Air Force Ex-Officers Emergency Reserve, which is officially recognised, is a voluntary organisation designed for the purpose of utilising the services of ex-officers who, for any reason, are precluded from entering the ordinary Reserve. Its members give a general and voluntary undertaking to come forward for service in the event of a national emergency. As regards the last part of the question, I understand that the subscription, which is a purely domestic matter, is intended to meet the expenses of administration.

Mr. Mander: Is it officially recognised and approved by the Air Ministry?

Earl Winterton: No, Sir. As my answer indicated, this is a voluntary organisation of gentlemen who have bound themselves to do certain things. How they raise the money for that is their own matter.

Mr. Mander: Is it nothing to do with the Air Ministry at all?

Earl Winterton: That is what my answer conveys.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

PILOTS (TRAINING).

Mr. Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the total

number of air pilots, other than in the Royal Air Force, being trained in Great Britain under subsidised schemes; what is the cost of such training; and whether he can give comparable figures for Germany?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): On 31st January last there were approximately 7,100 flying members of subsidised flying clubs under training in this country. £40,000 has been provided for subsidy payments during the present financial year to approved light aeroplane clubs. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

LOAN OF PILOTS, OPERATING COMPANIES.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether any and what arrangements exist or have existed for the loan or transfer of pilots from Imperial Airways, Limited, to Railway Air Services; and whether any such arrangements exist between Imperial Airways, Limited, and any other operating company?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I am informed that Imperial Airways supply the pilots and wireless operators to Railway Air Services for the operation of their services and that similar arrangements are in operation between Imperial Airways and other companies. The general position is that the company are prepared to make such arrangements, subject to the necessary personnel being available, for aircraft users in general who are not in competition with them or with their associated companies.

Mr. Lyons: Can the hon. Gentleman give the number of pilots belonging to Imperial Airways who are now employed by, or loaned to, Railway Air Services?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: No, I cannot say the number.

Mr. Mander: Is it not the case that, as a result of the Cadman Report, there is to be no change in the arrangement between these two companies?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: This, of course, is an arrangement by Imperial Airways, and not the Air Ministry. I do not know of any proposed change.

Mr. Day: Is the arrangement satisfactory?

WEST INDIES SERVICE.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that American and Dutch air lines are operating in the West Indies; what is the nature of the difficulties which, so far, have rendered a British service impracticable; and when consultation with West Indian Governors on the subject will be completed?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the operations of the air lines referred to. A British service would have required a subsidy, which, owing to more urgent claims, could not have been provided from the limited amount available. The question is now being reconsidered. I am not yet in a position to say when consultations with the West Indies Governors will be completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

ELECTRIC CABLES, PYLONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he has given consideration to the vulnerability of electric cables carried on pylons; and whether he will examine the question of having them underground for greater safety?

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I would rifer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to his question on 24th November last, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Tinker: In view of the intensity of preparation for what may happen, might not something further be done on this question?

Sir T. Inskip: I have looked at the reasons, or the facts which were ascertained for this suggestion by my right hon. Friend, and I am satisfied that the reasons for his answer were satisfactory.

Mr. Macquisten: If these overhead cables are dangerous for aeroplanes, is it not a pity that they cannot all be abolished?

ARMAMENT PRODUCTION (RAILWAY WORKSHOPS).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether railway workshops, in which the employés

are on short-time or in which the plant is not working to full capacity, are being used for the production of armament requirements or of the component parts of armament requirements?

Sir T. Inskip: Railway shops are not being used at the present time for the production of armament requirements, but the possibility of their use is under active consideration.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some factories working very long hours overtime, while railway shops close at hand, which could do the work, are working short-time, and the workers being dismissed? Will he look into the question?

Sir T. Inskip: I am looking into it. I would welcome any information which the hon. Gentleman could give.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is there any possibility of an arrangement being made between the several Government Departments, whereby skilled engineers in railway works who are dismissed because of lack of work can be transferred to rearmament factories for employment?

Sir T. Inskip: That is one of the questions which will be dealt with, if it is thought worth while, by the two bodies which, as the hon. Member knows, are conducting negotiations.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that any skilled engineers who are being dismissed in the engineering shops of this country have only to acquaint the headquarters of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, 110, Peckham Road, which will at once see that they are employed?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

INLAND WATERWAYS.

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Minister of Transport whether any consideration is being given to the repair and development of canals in this country, with a view to their greater use for transporting goods and material?

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Burgin): The hon. Member will be aware that since 1930 considerable improvements have been made in certain of the more important inland waterways. I am considering whether any steps can profitably be


taken to encourage the greater use of canals, but it will be some time before my investigations are complete.

LEVEL-CROSSINGS AND BRIDGES.

Mr. Parkinson: asked the Minister of Transport the number of railway level-crossings in this country; how many bridges there are which are scheduled to carry limited weights only; and the number of people killed and injured at level-crossings during -1937?

Mr. Burgin: There are approximately 4,560 public road level-crossings on the principal railway lines in Great Britain. There are some 2,500 bridges at present scheduled to carry limited weights on trunk and other classified roads, and on unclassified roads used by double-deck omnibus services. The number of such bridges on other unclassified roads is not available. The latest provisional figures for 1937 show that nine persons were killed and 15 injured in accidents on public road level-crossings in which trains were involved. The number of accidents at level-crossings during 1937 involving road vehicles only is not known, but in the year ended 31st March, 1937, there were 26 such accidents involving personal injury.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: As the Minister has been good enough to particularise with regard to trunk roads and other roads as far as bridges are concerned, will he inform the House of the number of level-crossings that are in fact on Class A roads and the number on other roads?

Mr. Burgin: I do not think that I would like to charge my memory by stating that, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I shall be very glad to give him the information.

CALEDONIAN POWER SCHEME (RIVER NESS).

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has made a calculation as to the effect on the flow of the River Ness of the Caledonian power scheme; and, if so, whether he will give the House the results of this calculation?

Mr. Burgin: Yes, Sir. The minimum average depth of water passing over Dochfour Weir into the River Ness during the month of June in 1915, the driest year for which I have complete records, was 18 feet 7½ inches. It is calculated that, in similar conditions as regards rainfall and under the regulated flow from the power stations provided for in the Bill, the average depth of water passing over the Weir will be 18 feet 8½ inches.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to ensure the immediate and adequate repair of roads in the event of their being damaged by air raids?

Mr. Burgin: Local authorities, who are primarily responsible for the repair of roads, have been advised that this is one of the matters which should receive attention in their air-raid precautions schemes. The engineering staff of my Department will assist in case of need.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to issue a letter to public utility companies and to passenger transport authorities, so that they can, without any further delay, co-operate with local air-raid precautions committees in drafting their schemes?

Mr. Burgin: There is much co-operation already. I am not sure whether any instruction from me is required. The matter is primarily under the Home Office, as the hon. Member knows, but I do not think that there is any cause for misgiving as to the extent of mutual co-operation.

Colonel Nathan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the official responsibility in this matter is divided between the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport?

Mr. Burgin: I think the prime responsibility for air-raid precautions must necessarily be a matter for the Home Office. I have no doubt that there is the closest co-operation with the public utilities to be protected, and that is a matter which primarily falls under my Department. There is the closest working co-operation, and I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member need be concerned on that side of the matter.

HIGH COURT (JUDGMENTS IN DEFAULT OF APPEARANCE).

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Attorney-General the number of judgments in default of appearance signed in the High Court for the year ending 31st December, 1937, for sums not exceeding £20, sums exceeding £20 but not exceeding £40, and sums exceeding £40 but not exceeding £100, respectively; and whether, with a view of saving expense to defendants and relieving the High Court of some of its work, he will introduce legislation to compel plaintiffs in future to issue all such actions in the county courts?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): The number of judgments in default of appearance signed in the High Court for the year ended 31st December, 1937, was 11,545. Of these 774 were under £20, 5,717 were for £20 and over but less than £40, and 5,054 were for £40 and over but less than £100,These are the nearest figures available to those asked for by the hon. Member. So far as these cases are concerned there is presumably no defence to the claim and the remedy may be quicker or more effective in the High Court. With regard to other cases, as the hon. Member is aware, there are provisions both for remitting actions to county courts and in certain cases for penalising in the matter of costs those who improperly start cases in the High Court. The relief given to the judges by the hon. Member's proposal would, I think, be very small, and I do not think legislation on the lines suggested would be justified.

COMMON EMPLOYMENT (LEGAL INTERPRETATION).

Mr. Cary: asked the Attorney-General whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment given on Friday last in the King's Bench Division, in the case of Metcalfe versus the London Passenger Transport Board, in which the plaintiff, Frederick Metcalfe, conductor of an omnibus, suffered grave injuries as a result of a collision between his omnibus and a tramcar; and, in view of the interpretation put upon the term common employment by the Court of Appeal in the case of Radcliffe versus the Ribble Motor Services, which governed this case, he will take steps to amend the law in this respect?

The Attorney-General: I have seen a report of this case. With regard to amendment of the law, this question was fully debated on a private Member's Bill on 11th March last, and a Bill proposing to abolish the doctrine of common employment was negatived.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: While the Bill which was introduced by a private Member may have been negatived, the fact remains that, owing to an act of this House, the bringing together of various companies and municipal authorities has resulted, arising out of a collision, in a man, who would have received, according to His Lordship, proper compensation, being deprived of it, and cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman say that he will give time for legislation to remedy what is undoubtedly an evil?

The Attorney-General: There are, obviously, two sides to this question, or the House would not have divided upon it on 11th March. After very full discussion, the House did negative the change in the law suggested in the Bill, which it would be highly impossible to debate on one side or another by way of answer to a supplementary question.

Mr. Macquisten: Would it not be better to burst up these big combines?

Mr. Attlee: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise now that the Government gave extremely bad advice to the House?

TERRITORIAL ARMY (MINIATURE RIFLES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can expedite the supply of rifles suitable for miniature-range work to units of the Territorial Force throughout the country?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): I am not aware that any units of the Territorial Army are short of the authorised scale of equipment of miniature rifles, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, perhaps he will be good enough to communicate with me, and I will make inquiries.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the miniature rifles at present in use are absolutely worn out


and need renewal, and will he give the matter his personal attention?

Sir V. Warrender: No, Sir, I am not aware of it.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (BIRMINGHAM).

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make a further statement with regard to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease among cattle in Birmingham?

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. The outbreak at Birmingham was discovered on 3rd April amongst the consignment of cattle in the corporation abattoir received there on 31st March from a firm of wholesale butchers at Nottingham on whose premises the disease was confirmed on 2nd April. Disinfection of the corporation abattoir was completed on 4th April, and there have been no subsequent developments from this outbreak.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CALCIUM CARBIDE (PRODUCTION, GERMANY).

Mr. Owen Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the quantity of calcium carbide produced in Germany during the last calendar year or some other period for which information is available, giving the quantity produced with the use of electricity generated by water-power and electricity generated by other means, respectively?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace): The desired information is not available from official German sources, but I understand that the production of calcium carbide in Germany during 1937 amounted to about 140,000 tons, of which roughly one-quarter was produced with the use of electricity generated by water power.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORTS TO JAPAN).

Mr. Riley: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of licences issued by the Government for the export of war material to Japan since 1st July, 1937, to the nearest available date, and the value of such exports?

Captain Wallace: Eight licences for the export of war material from the United Kingdom to Japan have been issued since 1st July, 1937. The total value of the arms, ammunition and military and naval stores registered as consigned from the United Kingdom to Japan from 1st July, 1937, to 28th February, 1938, was £61,000.

Mr. Riley: In view of the fact that the Government of Japan are carrying on an aggressive war against a country which is a member of the League of Nations, is it consistent with the policy of the Government and their membership of the League to assist the export of war material to an aggressor State?

Captain Wallace: Under the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911 no prohibition may be imposed on exports to Japan unless a similar prohibition applies to all destinations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has the Minister overlooked the fact that Treaties which are not in accordance with the Covenant are thereby null and void?

JAPAN.

Mr. Riley: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of exports, respectively, between this country and Japan for the six months ended February, 1938, and the corresponding period of 1936–37?

Captain Wallace: The aggregate value of the trade of the United Kingdom with individual countries is normally compiled in respect of calendar years and quarterly periods only. During the six months ended December, 1937, the total declared value of merchandise exported from the United Kingdom and consigned to Japan (including Formosa) was £2,099,000, including re-exports valued at £119,000, while imports into the United Kingdom consigned from Japan amounted to £6,751,000. The corresponding figures for the six months ended December, 1936, were £2,088,000 and £54,000, respectively, for total exports and re-exports, and £5,374,000 for imports.

MERCANTILE MARINE.

Commander Marsden: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether


his attention has been drawn to the disquieting aspect of British merchant shipping, due to the decline in the number of vessels owned in the United Kingdom; and whether he will now reconsider the Government's attitude in the matter?

Captain Wallace: Decline in the number of vessels does not necessarily mean reduction in the effective carrying power of the merchant fleet. The modern ship is generally larger, faster, and carries more cargo per ton gross than the prewar ships, while port facilities give it a quicker turn-round. His Majesty's Government fully recognise the need of a strong and healthy British shipping industry, and keep constantly under review the resources of the merchant fleet in relation to the services which in emergency it may be called upon to perform.

Commander Marsden: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that this is not a question of total tonnage available, but of the total number of ships available? Is he not aware of the continued anxiety expressed by nearly all the shipowners throughout the country at the reduction, not in the tonnage, but in the number of ships?

Captain Wallace: Yes, hut I have tried to explain to my hon. and gallant Friend that the reduction in the numbers, not taking tonnage into account, is not necessarily decisive. The Government are fully aware of the importance of keeping up the merchant navy.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that the British shipping fleet never was as efficient as it is at the present time?

Captain Wallace: That is exactly the purport of my answer.

ALIEN (PERMIT REFUSED).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what dates during 1937 and 1938 permission to enter this country was given to Herr Richard W. A. Behn, of 10, Adolphsboucher, Hamburg; what were the objects for which permission was sought; and why permission to land was recently refused?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): This man was given leave to land on five

occasions last year, the stated purpose of his visits being legal business. On 12th March leave to land was refused as a result of further inquiries into his activities. He is known to be connected with the industrial firm to which I referred in reply to a question which the hon. Member put to me yesterday.

INCOME TAX CODIFICATION COMMITTEE.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the committee on the Income Tax was appointed; when it reported; which of the recommendations of that committee do His Majesty's Government propose to accept; and when will the necessary legislation be introduced?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the Income Tax Codification Committee about which he asked a similar question on 28th October last. That committee was appointed on 31st October, 1927, and reported on 12th March, 1936. The fact that the committee took so lengthy a period in discharging its task illustrates the very complex character of the matters to be considered. To the information given in reply to the earlier question, I can only add that it will not be possible to introduce legislation during the current Session.

Colonel Nathan: Is it not a fact that the committee occupied over nine years considering this subject, and that the Government have had 18 months in which to consider the recommendation; that the matter is so constantly changing that the recommendations will be out of date if action is not taken now, and a new committee will have to be appointed? Will the Government take steps to give effect to such parts of the recommendations as they approve?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: No time will be lost unnecessarily but, as the hon. and gallant Member himself said, it took nine years for the committee to consider this subject, and a certain time for digestion is obviously necessary.

Colonel Nathan: Do the Government propose to take nine years in which to digest it?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The hon. and gallant Member will agree that it is very important that legislation brought before Parliament should be carefully considered.

NATIONAL SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts of accrued but unpaid interest on national savings certificates at the end of the revenue year 1937–38?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The amount is provisionally estimated at £131,000,000.

Colonel Nathan: Can the Financial Secretary say where this sum appears in the national accounts?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: We can discuss this matter at a later date on the accounts and the hon. and gallant Member can ascertain the information then. We cannot deal with the matter by question and answer.

Colonel Nathan: Is the Financial Secretary aware that I am not asking for a discussion of the matter, but where I can find the information in the national accounts. Will he say where it is to be found?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Will the hon. and gallant Member put that question on the Order Paper?

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (STAFFS, HOSPITAL CONTRI BUTIONS).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the scheme for collecting contributions for hospital purposes recently decided on will extend to non-industrial workers on Government staffs at home as well as to industrial workers on the said staffs, as is the case in the Admiralty service at home; and, if so, what services will be affected and how many workers in each service?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, Sir. The scheme will be made available to all Government staffs at home, whether industrial or non-industrial. The non-industrial staffs number approximately 370,000, and I am sending to the hon. and learned Member a copy of Command Paper 5543. which shows their distribution.

HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.

Mr. Riley: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has yet received the report of the Special Committee on Holidays with Pay; and, if so, when he hopes to present it to the House?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Lennox-Boyd): My right hon. Friend has not yet received this report.

Mr. Riley: In view of the fact that it is 18 months since this House passed the Second Reading of a Bill in favour of holidays with pay, that it is a year since the committee was appointed and that they concluded their evidence last December, can the Parliamentary Secretary say why the report is not ready?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Some of the evidence is very complex. The committee have held many sittings, and in the circumstances they have conducted their inquiries with great expedition.

Mr. R. Gibson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary do his best to expedite the report, because in Scotland the Secretary of State is awaiting it in order to make some kind of arrangements with the local authorities for the spread-over of industrial holidays?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated assent.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to make a brief personal explanation with reference to the first paragraph of my speech in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Architects Registration Bill. I was in error in making it appear as if my firm were members of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors. I should have made it clear that my partner alone was a member of that Association. Secondly, I referred in my speech to the year 1931, having in mind the year in which the 1931 Architects Registration Act was passed; but I am now informed that my late partner took out his certificate of membership of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors in 1929, and not in 1931. It will be recalled that Bills for the registration of architects were before the House from 1927 onwards, and the incident mentioned in my speech must, therefore, have taken place with reference to the


Bill introduced in 1929, or earlier. I beg leave, therefore, to withdraw the misstatements in my speech, and to tender my apologies to the House for having made them. I should add that the statements were made entirely on my own initiative, and were not prompted from any other source.

BILL PRESENTED.

POOR'S ALLOTMENT IN HANWELL BILL,

"to confirm a Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity called the Poor's Allotment, in the Ancient Parish of Hanwell, in the County of Middlesex," presented by Mr. Lewis Jones; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Atlee: Will the Prime Minister state what business it is proposed to take in the event of the Eleven o'Clock Rule being suspended?

The Prime Minister: We are moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to obtain the Committee stage of the Class VII Buildings Votes which are on the Order Paper.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 126.

Division No. 165.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cross, R. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Albery, Sir Irving
Crowder, J. F. E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Se'h Univ's)
Culverwell, C. T.
Hulbert, N. J.


Apsley, Lord
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hunter, T.


Assheton, R.
De la B&amp;ère, R.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hutchlnson, G. C.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Denville, Alfred
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Doland, G. F.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Duggan, H. J.
Joel, D. J. B.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Th[...]net)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Jones. L. (Swansea W.)


Balniel, Lord
Eastwood, J. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Edge, Sir W.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Elliot, Rt. Han. W. E.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Beechman, N. A.
Elmley, Viscount
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bernays, R. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Blair, Sir R.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Lees-Jones, J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Leigh, Sir J.


Bossom, A. C.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Brass, Sir W.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Bris[...], Capt. R. G.
Fleming, E. L.
Lewis, O.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lindsay, K. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Lipson, D. L.


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Goldie, N. B.
Lloyd, G. W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Loftus, P. C.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lyons, A. M.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Butcher, H. W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Cartland, J. R, H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cary, R. A.
Grimston, R. V.
McKie, J. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Magnay, T.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)

Hambro, A. V.
Maitland, A.


Channon, H.
Hannah, I. C.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Markham, S. F.



Clarry, Sir Reginald
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Marsden, Commander A.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mills, Sir F. (Leytort, E.)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Higgs, W. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Holdsworth, H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Holmes, J. S.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry




Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Rowlands, G.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Munro, P.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Tate, Mavis C.


Nall, Sir J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Salt, E. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)
Touche, G. C.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Patrick, C. M.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Peat, C. U.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Petherick, M.
Savery, Sir Servington
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Scott, Lord William
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Pilkington, R.
Selley, H. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Radford, E. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Ramsbotham, H.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Rankin, Sir R.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wells, S. R.


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Whiteley, Major J. P, (Buckingham)


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somerset, T.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Rayner, Major R. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J,
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)



Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Storey, S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Captain Dugdale and Mr. Furness.


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pearson, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Adamson, W. M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hardie, Agnes
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J, (Ardwick)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Bellenger, F. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Jagger, J.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cassells, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dalton, H.
Lathan, G.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leach, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Tomlinson, G.


Dav, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGovern, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T, H.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
White, H. Graham


Frankel, D.
Mander, G. le M.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Mathers.


Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

CLACTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords.]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 124.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1938.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—[Captain Margesson.]

SPREAD-OVER OF HOLIDAYS.

4.0 p.m

Mr. Roland Robinson: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
in the opinion of this House the growing tendency to grant annual holidays with pay to industrial workers makes it advisable for the Government to take all possible steps to facilitate and encourage the even distribution of holidays throughout the summer months, and with that end in view it calls upon the Minister of Labour and the President of the Board of Education to consult together with a view to eliminating present obstacles to the spread-over of holidays.
It seems to me perhaps appropriate, when within eight days this House will be adjourning to take a holiday itself, that hon. Members should pause and think what steps they can take to improve the holiday conditions of the people of this country. I do not apologise for bringing before the House this very important problem. So far as this House is concerned it is a new problem, and that is something which should commend itself to the House in these days, when week after week the House has listened to discussions on the same subject. At least it will be refreshing, if not staggering, to hear a new subject in this House. I submit that this is a problem which in one way or another affects everyone. From many points of view it is a seaside problem, and many of my friends who represent seaside resorts have asked me to say that they are all of them in favour of the Amendment, though the lack of time may prevent them from getting an opportunity to speak.
I have said that it is a problem which affects everyone. It is vital from the point of view of the health resorts. It is equally important to the transport industry throughout the country. It affects most importantly the interests of employers and of workers, and moves also

the education authorities and the children. The question comes very much to the fore at the present time, for the country has witnessed during the last few years a vast increase in the granting of an annual holiday with pay. So I say that the problem to-day is more urgent and pressing than ever it has been before. The House on many occasions has expressed itself in favour of the principle of the paid annual holiday. In considering that matter I believe it is the duty of the House to see that so far as possible everyone has a good holiday under the best conditions and as cheaply as possible.
It is my submission that the August holiday, as we know it, is a relic of the past. It dates back to the old days when holidays were restricted to the few, the days when the country squire came up to London for the London season in the months of May, June and July, then adjourned for yachting or perhaps for shooting, and he and his class were the only ones in the country who were able to take a decent holiday. Those days have now gone. Holidays, instead of being for the few, are the prerogative of the million, and I believe that this House is determined to see that that is so. But we find ourselves tied to the old and outworn system which compels all to take their holidays at the same time and at dates which were originally chosen as suitable for the country squire.
I propose to examine the position from the point of view of the various interests concerned. To begin with I shall refer to the transport industry and shall consider the question from the point of view of the railways and the roads. From the point of view of the railways the figures available are astonishing. During the month of August, making a comparison with an average month, we find that the railways carry 20,000,000 extra passengers. That is at the rate of 500 to each train. It means that the railway lines of the country are compelled during the month of August to run some 40,000 extra trains, in addition to their normal traffic. The congestion is equally great on the roads, for not only are the owners of small cars all out at the same time, but the road transport companies are forced to double the amount of traffic which they carry. The result is that we have very unhealthy peaks of activity in both the road and rail transport industries,


unhealthy financially because the companies concerned have to keep a large amount of rolling-stock idle throughout the year so that when the time comes it can meet the vast amount of traffic which is put upon it. It is financially unsound too because road and rail companies are compelled to ask their employés to work many hours of overtime, which costs a great deal of money and is not probably very desirable from the point of view of the worker himself. The position is difficult too, especially on the roads, when the driver of the omnibus must undergo greater fatigue at his job owing to the rush and the congestion; and the result is that in this crowded month we have a far greater accident risk than at any other time of the year. It is obvious that when the rush is most intensified the mistakes brought about by the failure of the human effort are more numerous.
I pass from the transport industry to the resorts themselves. Here we have a position which I feel sure must call for the sympathy of the House, because the people who are engaged in the holiday industry of the resorts are forced by the very nature of their job to compress into some six or seven weeks the whole harvest of the year. We find hotels and amusement places overcrowded during this short period, and then that most resorts are practically deserted for the rest of the year. There is one unfortunate result arising from that. It is -chat the law of supply and demand inevitably forces up the prices charged in the resorts. If only people would take their holidays in some month other than August they would find it cheaper. So if we could have a spread-over of holidays it would be cheaper and there would be less congestion. The people in the resorts have great difficulties in regard to management. If they are suffering from an eternal rush it is impossible for them to give the best services that they would like to render to their clients.
There is a further point of view which has been discovered by the Ministry of Labour. Because the season is so short and the work lasts for so little time there is not a great demand among the people of the country to go into the industry. The Minister of Labour has been at some pains in trying to direct more people to the catering industry, because summer after summer it has been found at the resorts that there are not sufficient

workers available to do the jobs during the short holiday period of the year. The local authorities, too, find that there is a great strain on their resources. They cater for the transport industry and look after the general utility services of the towns. I consider that the whole situation is absolutely uneconomic and unsound, for in the resorts of the country capital and labour have to remain idle for the greater part of the year.
Having considered the question from the point of view of the resorts themselves, let me pass to another phase which is, perhaps, too often overlooked in considering the question of a spread-over of holidays. That is the position from the point of view of the workers in the resorts. The position of the workers in the seaside resorts is most important. They do their best in the season, but it is often forgotten by holiday-makers when they go out to have a good time that they want a great deal of care and attention, and they frequently ask for that care and attention throughout all the hours of the day. The result is that in the season, in the resorts of this country, the workers, by the nature of their occupation, are compelled to work for longer hours than they would work in any other industry in the country. Their hours are far too long. I need hardly quote the case of the seaside landlady who has to be up at six in the morning to see that the lodging-house is clean and to prepare breakfast for her visitors. She and those who work with her have their services in constant demand throughout all the hours of the day, and they are frequently not able to retire for their rest until after midnight. So they work these long hours. The constant cry is "Hurry, hurry. hurry."
We have heard, especially during the last summer, that men of the London Transport Board have found the strain of their work doubled. I submit that so far as the worker in the seaside resorts is concerned industrial strain is greater during the season than it is in any other industry. People are frequently knocked up when the end of the season comes round. I can summarise their position by quoting from a song which was made famous by that great artist, Paul Robeson:
You and me, we sweat and strain,
Body all aching and racked with pain.
They cannot stop because it is of vital


importance that the public should be served; they cannot stop because it means so much to them, because in the short space of a few weeks their season of work will be finished and they will be forced to remain idle throughout the whole of the winter. They do not like it. Unfortunately these people, who are working the longest hours in the country under conditions of the greatest strain and the greatest rush, are those who are penalised throughout the winter months. By our system they are classed as seasonal workers. Generally they cannot draw even unemployment insurance benefit and they are thrown on to the Unemployment Assistance Board and the means test. I ask that we should spread out their season so that instead of their working for a few weeks only they may work for a few months, and thus be able to have on their cards sufficient stamps to qualify them for unemployment insurance benefit.
Passing from the workers in the resorts to the workers who are taking their holidays, I ask what is their position? After they have had a long year of toil I think it will be agreed all round that they well deserve a holiday, and that they have a right to demand the very best conditions and the greatest amount of freedom in which to refresh themselves for another year of work. What do they get? It frequently happens that when the holiday comes along congestion in the month of August is so great that trains leave during the night, frequently after midnight. Father and mother and children catch a train perhaps at one o'clock in the morning. They have almost to fight their way to the train, and then they are squeezed so tightly that travelling must be very unhealthy for them. They travel during the night and are thrown into the resorts at four or five o'clock in the morning to find their way as best they can. They are so tired that they require two or three days' holiday to recover from the journey. These people get to our resorts in the month of August. They live in crowded lodgings. We hear of people sleeping in baths, on billiard tables or in armchairs, because there is no other accommodation available for them. In the day they go on to crowded beaches until at the height of the season the beaches resemble human ant-heaps rather than anything else.
That is the sort of holiday to which the worker in this country is condemned under the present system. Wherever he goes during the holiday season he finds long queues waiting for amusements and for bathing. In the case of Blackpool I know that at the end of the holiday period even the trains are rationed as they would be in war time. So, he cannot even travel unless he gets a ration ticket. In August he is asked to pay the highest prices. It seems to me wrong that the poorest class of the community should be forced to take their holidays at a time when prices are highest. In order to make the worker's holidays cheaper and give him more comfortable conditions, better accommodation, better service and better travel facilities, I urge the House to agree to this proposal.
Happy the man who can take his holidays in the months of June or July, when the daylight is longer, when the countryside is fresher, when he can live in a cool, bracing atmosphere, when he gets more sunshine and less rain. The figures of the last 36 years show that one can expect an extra hour of sunshine every day in June, and in the months of June and July there is one inch less rain than in August. August is the wettest month of the year with the exceptions of October, November and December. The spread-over has been tried in my own county of Lancashire. The people of Bolton take their annual town's holiday in June. This year the town's holiday will be on 25th June. When the people were first asked to take their holiday early in the year they complained. Now that they have been doing it for some time, they appreciate the benefits of the early holidays so much that nothing would induce them to change back to the old system of having the holiday in August.
I have endeavoured to show the conditions which exist in crowded holiday resorts during the month of August. I have given the latest information at my disposal which relates to last summer when some 2,000,000 workers in this country had annual holidays with pay. Since then, the increase in paid holidays has been vastly intensified and a few days ago the Minister of Labour told us that there were now 3,000,000 workers enjoying holidays with pay. At this moment a committee is preparing a report on the subject. We cannot deal with that matter in advance of the report, but I


venture to prophesy that opinion in this country on the question is now so far advanced that, whatever means that report may suggest for securing paid holidays, it is only a matter of a few years before the whole of the insured workers will have paid annual holidays. Then we shall have some 11,000,000 people being turned loose on the resorts of the country, and if the present system is continued, and they are all to take their holidays in August the result will be chaos and confusion. This problem is rapidly becoming one of great urgency and the Ministry ought to give immediate attention to it. If the annual holiday with pay is to be successful, it must be spread over the summer months so that everybody can enjoy it in comfort. A great deal has already been done in one way or another. In Lancashire and Yorkshire there are 108 cotton towns which make arrangements to stagger their holidays from June to September in every year.

Mr. Gallacher: And in Scotland.

Mr. Robinson: I understand that is so in Scotland also. Following a meeting held on the Manchester Cotton Exchange, the whole of the cotton towns agreed to a rota whereby they close down one by one and so lessen congestion and ease the problem. The towns concerned are, as I say, mainly cotton towns but the holiday is not confined to the cotton industry. When a town takes its town's holiday every other industry in that town falls in with the arrangement. Even the banks are shut and everybody goes en masseto the sea or the countryside on these occasions.

Mr. Gallacher: If they can afford it.

Mr. Robinson: In these cotton towns the education system is adapting itself to the conditions of the holiday. In Lancashire it is a regular thing for the elementary schools to close for a week during the town's holiday, and that week is counted as part of the schools' midsummer holiday. This system has worked without friction and with a great deal of success. Some people may object that if they take their holidays in June, they will have a long wait until Christmas without a holiday. Under the Lancashire and Yorkshire system, that objection has been met, because where a town's holiday is taken in June, or

early in the season, there is, invariably, also given a short holiday in the month of September, so that there is a proper break in the industrial life of the people.
There is undoubtedly a demand for a spread-over. Some time ago, the Board of Education said there was no demand, but times have changed. I think I have satisfied the House that the resorts want it. They have asked for it for years through the Association of Health and Pleasure Resorts, of which I have the honour to be president. So have the hotels and the catering industry. Transport, road and rail, is united in this demand. It does not come merely from those interested in holiday resorts. The National Chamber of Trade which represents traders throughout the country, is unanimously in favour of this proposal and desires the Minister to do everything he can to help it. It has been my privilege to discuss this matter with the National Federation of Employers' Organisations which, on all these questions, is the representative body of the employers. They are very much in favour of this reform, and are prepared to co-operate in every effort which may be made for a spread-over.
The employers are with us, and so are the workers. Part of the evidence of the trade unions before the committee on holidays with pay was to the effect that, if paid holidays were granted, they should be spread over between April and October. I approached the Trades Union Congress myself, and Sir Walter Citrine said they stood by their evidence in favour of a spread-over from April to October, and that the trade unions were prepared to co-operate and believed that a spread-over could be brought about by voluntary negotiations between the employers and the unions. That I believe to be the case. We need negotiation and conciliation, and a little help from the Government as well, in order to bring about this reform.
The main difficulty advanced, so far, is that married couples of the working class have to take their children with them when they go on holidays and are therefore forced to take their holidays at the time of the school holidays. To meet that difficulty it would be necessary to make some slight adjustments in the education system and to see that the school holidays, also, are spread over, so


that industry and education can co-operate to the common benefit. It has been said that the National Union of Teachers and teachers generally are opposed to the spread-over of holidays. I have been in communication with the National Union, and they inform me that the country misunderstands their attitude. They are not opposed to the spread-over of the holidays. They have in many places cooperated in it. The only point is that, in their view, it is a matter for the local education authority to decide the date on which the school holiday is to take place, and once that position is made clear, then the teachers will co-operate loyally and help to work out whatever the arrangement may be. So it is, that we have to go to the local education authorities and see what help they will give.

Viscountess Astor: Is it true, as has been rumoured, that some of the teachers are opposed to the proposal in regard to the elementary schools and secondary schools?

Mr. Robinson: That is not so. When this question was raised with the teachers they did not make any difficulties at all, but said that they would co-operate loyally and willingly in whatever decisions might be made by the local education authorities. The matter has been discussed by the Association of Education Committees and, at their annual conference this summer, there will be on the agenda a resolution approving of the principle of the spread-over of holidays. I believe the greatest possible help could be given by the Board of Education if they would send out a circular to local education authorities pointing out the importance of this question in view of the increase in the number of those who are now getting holidays with pay. If the Board would only give a lead to the local committees, it would quickly be followed all over the country and the problem would soon be solved.
There is one other difficulty which arises in relation to the secondary schools and the university examinations. To me, there is nothing sacred about July as the month for school examinations. That system, again, is a relic of the past. It is a relic of the days when the schools were so cold that examinations could only be held in the summer months. To-day our schools are well heated, and the

examinations could easily be taken before Easter, and, 'in my opinion, that would be the best time of the year for them. I do not think that the change could be made immediately, but I would urge that suggestion on the Board of Education, and ask them to see whether something cannot be done in that respect. If the initial change were once made, the system would undoubtedly work well.
I submit that the educational difficulties can easily be overcome. The demand for this reform exists, and it seems incredible that, for want of a little good will and co-operation, things should remain as they are. What is really required at this moment is strong leadership in this matter. We have a man of ability and energy who can give that leadership and secure co-operation in this movement. I refer to the Minister of Labour. He is a man of great understanding who has been accustomed for years to industrial negotiations, and has carried them out with success. If he will only arise as the champion of this cause, and give a lead to the country, then, I believe, the day will be won. Under his leadership, we can achieve a real measure of co-operation between employer and worker, between industry and education, which will express itself in a series of voluntary agreements and result in a spread-over of holidays which will be beneficial to the health, happiness and welfare of our people. The nation calls for action, and the Minister can give it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Holmes: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) should be thanked for having used his luck in the Ballot to introduce this new subject for debate, and that he should be congratulated on having put the case before us with such great cogency and ample detail. This problem has become an acute national one owing to holidays with pay. To-day one can hardly open a daily newspaper or a trade paper without reading that a new set of employers and workpeople have come to an agreement by which holidays with pay have been granted, and it is impossible adequately to visualise the chaos which will ensue if small employers or workers who are getting holidays with pay all take their holidays in the month of August. My


hon. Friend has referred to the chaos that there will be on the railways, on the roads, and at the seaside resorts. As he said, it is obvious that the workers who obtain holidays with pay will go away from home for a week. The man will not want to work in his garden dining that period, and certainly the wife will want, for one week out of 52 weeks in the year, to get away from her household duties, see a fresh scene, and have other people working for her. There will, therefore, be great disappointment, discomfort, and dissatisfaction on the part of the ordinary citizen and his wife unless arrangements are made by which they can go to the seaside or elsewhere in comfort, so far as both transport and accommodation are concerned.
In days gone by there were very few people who obtained a holiday and could go away to the seaside or elsewhere. August, as my hon. Friend has said, was regarded as the holiday month, mainly due to the fact that the schools broke up in July for their annual long vacation and did not go back again until September. But in those days, in order to induce people to go to the seaside, there being so few who were able to take holidays, the railway companies offered special facilities in the way of excursions, and the seaside resorts had just one good month in the year. Now things are completely changed, as we have all seen, and the problem is an acute and serious one, which must be faced and solved. The remedy is largely one of arrangement and good will. This problem cannot be solved by legislation, but a solution can undoubtedly be helped by Government action and example. The matter is in fact largely a question of psychology, and it will be solved if we can succeed in impressing upon the minds of the people of this country that the period from Easter to the end of September, or shall I say the period covered by Summer time, is a holiday period, during which few events except those appropriate for holiday makers should take place.
In the past, owing to the fact that so few people were able to take holidays, events have established themselves during the summer months which might well take place at another time of the year. We must create a universal agreement that the summer months are holiday months, and London must take the lead. I will give two examples of events that

take place in the summer which might well take place at another time of the year. There is the Royal Academy, that opens on 1st May, and there is the Covent Garden Opera, which has its summer season. Both those events could take place at another time of the year. It might be said that the number of people who go to the Academy and the Opera is not great, as compared with the population of the country, but if those events were transferred to another part of the year because the summer was to be regarded as a holiday period, it would have a great psychological effect on the feelings of a great many people.
But most important of all is the action that this House can take with regard to it. If the House was willing to commence its annual Session at the beginning of October, take a shorter holiday at Christmas, and rise before Whitsun, the effect on the mind of the country would be tremendous. If during June, July, August, and September there was no House of Commons sitting——

Mr. George Griffiths: Why sit at all?

Mr. Holmes: —and there were no reports of Parliament in the newspapers, it would be realised more and more by people that these were holiday months. I am prepared for people to tell me that that is impossible because of financial arrangements. The financial year ends on 5th April, the Budget is brought in at the end of April, and the necessary Financial Resolutions and Finance Bills have to be passed. We have been told in the past that things were impossible. Year after year the Daylight Saving Bill was rejected by this House because it was an impossible proposition, but none of us to-day would vote for its repeal. Of course, while altering the London season to a certain extent, in the ways-that I have suggested, there would be no interference with the events which might be regarded as for holiday makers. and which necessarily have to take place in the summer months. For example, there would be no interference with cricket at Lords and the Oval, with tennis at Wimbledon, with racing at Epsom and Ascot, with the regatta at Henley, or with the tattoo at Aldershot. Another objection to this suggestion will probably come from hotels and shopkeepers in London, but I would remind them, if they do object, that London itself will


be a great holiday centre, and the holiday should be spread not merely over a few weeks in August, but over the whole of the summer, because there are many people who will be getting holidays with pay who live in the country or at the seaside, and they will want to go to a town like London to enjoy their week's holiday.
May I now pass to the question of the education authorities? There is no doubt whatever that the greatest difficulty in the way of this spreading of holidays is the scholastic year. The school year commences in the autumn and runs to the end of July, examinations are held during the summer, prize givings and speech days are held in July, and the solution of that problem probably is that the scholastic year should be the same as the calendar year. The school year should begin at the beginning of January, examinations should be held in the autumn——

Mr. Ede: Or be abolished.

Mr. Holmes: ——and prize givings and speech days should take place in December. I ventured to suggest that this was a matter of psychology and that a gesture by the House of Commons would be very helpful from one point of view. There is an opportunity here, with regard to the scholastic year, for the great schools at Eton and Harrow to make a gesture by declaring that their year shall be the calendar year and not one commencing in October and ending in the summer. There are many old Etonians and old Harrovians in this House——

Mr. Cove: Too many.

Mr. Holmes: ——who perhaps might care to submit this suggestion to the Governors of those schools. Those who, like yourself, Sir, were at Eton would be able to submit to the Governors of Eton College that after 123 years another great public service could be rendered by that school. I refer to 123 years, because it will be remembered that in 1815 the Battle of Waterloo was won. All these things will take time. You cannot change the psychology of a nation in a few weeks or a few years. In the meantime the problem is urgent, and one must appeal to the employers of the country to do their utmost to help things in the summer that is now coming. There are two ways in

which employers can give holidays with pay. One is by shutting the whole works for a week and letting everybody go away at the same time. One must beg of those employers not to choose the last two weeks in July, or any weeks in August, or even the first in September. But where a business does not close down, both the salaried workers and the wage-earners must have their holidays spread. There again one wants to ask that August as far as possible should be avoided. There are certain big institutions in this country which could alter the date of their annual balancing in order to assist in spreading the holidays. I refer, for example, to the joint stock banks. They are accustomed to make up their accounts half-yearly, on 30th June and 31st December. The result is that they are unable to spread their holidays during the earlier summer months until they have got all the work of the half-year's balancing to 30th June done. If they could see their way to balancing their books at 31st March and 30th September, they would make a great contribution towards the solution of this problem.
Such is the problem. There is likely to be chaos in August unless it is dealt with at once. We do not want to drive our people abroad for their holidays, nor do we want to frighten foreigners away. That would be a double disadvantage, as far as this country is concerned. The education question, the scholastic year, is undoubtedly the most difficult part of the problem, and is dealt with in the Motion, but the greatest psychological act which could be performed to help spread the holidays would be if the House of Commons would alter the period of its annual Sessions. Latterly in this House Debates which have had reference to serious problems have been solely those which concerned international affairs, but to-day we have a domestic problem of our own. It has arisen owing to the fact that our workers are socially and financially better off than those of any other country in the world. We are all proud of it, and it therefore devolves on all concerned—employers, trade unions, education authorities, and this House—to help by action, example and gesture to solve the problem.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: It is seldom that we on these benches find ourselves in such complete agreement with the other side


of the House. The excellent speech of the Mover of the Amendment was marred by only one point: he cannot expect us on this side to subscribe to his eulogy of his right hon. Friend. It is gratifying that the House is giving some attention to a problem such as this, because so far as the tourist industry is concerned there are few opportunities of discussing this important factor in the social and economic life of the country. We little appreciate, for instance, that the amount of income derived from persons visiting us from the Continent, the United States and the Dominions is in volume as large as the export trade of some of our principal industries. My claim to speak on this matter is largely due to the fact that for a long time I have been actively engaged in trying to organise a social movement concerned with holidays for working people, and with the planning of their recreations and social facilities.
As the Mover of the Amendment pointed out, a vast change has been going on in social habits during recent years. I have been reminded of the fact that when the August Bank Holiday Act was before the House it was objected to on the ground that if working people enjoyed a holiday they would get drunk and be unfit for work for several days. It is well within the recollection of the House that newspapers seemed to take a joy after the Bank Holiday in publishing the number of drunks and comparing the number with previous holidays.
The privilege of holidays was formerly enjoyed by a limited few. Soon the non-manual and professional classes enjoyed the privilege, and now it is spreading to all sections of the community. There are already about 5,000,000 hand and brain workers who enjoy holidays with pay. Three million of them are industrial workers, and 1,500,000 have been added during the past year or so. When the Committee on Holidays with Pay reports I hope it will report favourably to the extension of holidays with pay. We shall then see, I hope, another 12,000,000 industrial workers brought within this privilege, and we shall be in line, I hope, with other industrial countries of Europe, such as France, Germany and Russia. This will create an enormous problem of social and economic organisation. We saw what happened in France last year when this privilege was extended to the

masses of the workers. It created a great deal of dislocation in industry, in distribution and in transport and created difficult problems of accommodation. It is right, therefore, that this House should face the problem that is likely to arise by an extension of this privilege, because it is not enough just to proclaim the holiday and for everybody to close down for Bank Holiday week and then hope for the best that everybody will have a good holiday.
Apart from what might happen when more workers get the privilege, the problem of congestion already exists. For a long time there has been an increasing number of people receiving holidays and spending them away from home, and in spite of the new facilities in transport and the attempts made by holiday caterers to cope with the new demand, the strain imposed has been of gathering severity. From my own experience in studying the statistics of the organisation with which I am associated, one-half of the available accommodation is used from 1st June to 16th July and from 21st August to 30th September; and probably half the people taking holidays do so between 1st August and 21st August. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) has given us some figures in regard to the transport arrangements at the peak of the season. I have some further figures from the railway companies showing that 20,000,000 extra passengers travel during August as compared with May or October. The number of passenger journeys in June are 56,000,000, and they rise in July to 60,000,000 and in August to 72,000,000, falling away again in September to 52,000,000. The railway companies point out, too, that 100 per cent. more monthly tickets are issued in August than in June. It is obvious that these terrific demands on the railways create problems, because there are limits to the amount of rolling stock, to the number of trains the lines will carry, and to the length and weight of trains.
I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that the existing facilities could be used by many more people than are using them to-day if the holidays were spread. There would be greater economy in the use of transport through the reduction of excessive peak loads and an increase of loads in the slack months. In some respects it is agreed, I think, that it is a waste of capital to go on planning new


facilities if they can only be used in the peak of the season. The present concentration in the summer months creates the maximum of inconvenience, discomfort and inefficiency for the people who are obliged to take their holidays at one time. We are all familiar with the horrible rush at week-ends in the summer time and the overcrowding of all the transport services. The catering and accommodation at the resorts will be improved if it is made worth while to the providers by assuring them that their facilities will be used over longer periods. There will be far less overcrowding of the distasteful type to which the hon. Member for Blackpool referred. Often the good of a holiday is undone because of the irritating and nerve-racking conditions of the return journey home. I believe that many of the resorts could be brought to a better standard of health and sanitation if the overcrowding did not take place. The enjoyment of a holiday would also be far greater if more freedom of movement were possible at the resorts.
I agree, therefore, that the present arrangements are apt to be wasteful, because the existing facilities are not advantageously used. They create a problem out of season for the transport undertakers, caterers and hotels. For the workers it means employment for a period of only weeks often under uneconomical conditions and it involves an intense strain during the few weeks in which they are employed. Finally, it imposes for the workers who have to take their holidays at that time the necessity of high season charges. I have had some experience with regard to the fixing of prices for holidays, and one is often induced to fix a higher price than is really necessary because the facility has to be paid for on the earnings for the year, and if the facility is used only a very short period obviously a high charge has to be made in the high season. My organisation at times has imposed a high season charge with a view to forcing people into the out of season period, although that is a little unfortunate for parents and teachers who can only take their holidays in the high season period.
We should recognise that the railway companies, the transport undertakers, the resorts and the tourist organisations have done their best to widen the period of the use of their facilities. By advertising

and other methods they have tried to get over to the public that holidays ought to be taken over a wider period. I noticed an advertisement by the Great Western Railway in the "New Statesman" this week, pointing out "the joy of early holidays" and the fact that from 1st to 30th June there are 496 hours of daylight, and from 1st to 30th August only 438. The advertisement continues:
These extra hours of sunshine are extra hours of health. The countryside is never fresher than in June. Why add to the overcrowding in the later summer? And why not take advantage of cheaper accommodation? Early travel is comfortable travel. So try a June holiday this year!
The railway companies and the resorts have been doing quite a lot of that kind of advertising. The railway companies have also extended transport facilities into the out-season, and tried to create new methods of holiday-making with a view to relieving congestion in particular types of holidays. They are, for instance, adapting their old coaches and giving new facilities to people who enjoy open air holidays. At the beginning of this year they circularised the chambers of commerce in the hope that they might be able to induce their members in the respective towns to apply spread-over holidays in the coming year. By publicity, resorts and transport undertakers have been trying to change the public attitude to this matter.
The tourist organisations have also done a lot in this respect. They have issued their programmes earlier, have arranged holidays over wide periods, and have tried to keep holiday centres open during uneconomic periods. They have also tried in the case of foreign holidays to organise the running of special trains from Easter onwards. That is a heavy financial liability which the tourist organisations have taken on. In addition, they have tried to arrange for the special trains to run not only in the week-ends, but on Tuesdays and Fridays as well. They have tried to plan new routes to the Continent for popular travel. For instance, in the last year or so the Harwich-Flushing-Bale route has been open for special trains, and in other respects, by introducing new types of holidays, they have tried to break down the congestion. I need only refer to the holidays that are now popularised in respect of cruising, camping, guest houses, motor tours and open air types of holiday. The tourist organisa


tions have tried to open out new countries for the holiday maker in order to relieve the congestion in the more popular parts. I need not detail the experiments that have been made in that direction. Where these tourist associations possess guest houses at home, they have tried out-of-season to apply low charges in the hope of inducing workers who can only take their holiday out of season to come. In these various ways the tourist organisations, railway companies, transport undertakings and resorts have tried to relieve the strain by widening the period of holidays and increasing the type of facilities available.
There are limits to multiplying the facilities that are usable only for a few weeks. The founding of guest houses and the making of new forms of transport involve heavy costs and are financially risky. What we need is to widen the narrow banks which at present confine the increasing stream of holiday traffic. I agree with the Seconder of the Amendment that the problem is partly psychological. I have tried to persuade people to take their holidays out of season, but their replies have always been that they have children at school and cannot get away, or that the holiday season is over or has not begun, or that they think the weather is risky. Moreover, people do love doing things at the same time, and even doing the same things. That is why July and August are usually chosen. They imagine that the weather is more promising, that the days and evenings are warmer, that there are more distractions and that they get more sunshine. They believe that holidays at that period break up the year, and that they are taking their holidays when other people are doing the same.
There is another factor which should not be forgotten—that there are fashions in holidays. People are very imitative. One year every one wants to go cruising, another year they want a holiday at home, and another year everybody wants to go to a particular country. There is a big practical problem to get over when people want to do the same thing at the same time, and it is difficult to persuade them to seek their own comfort by taking their holiday when other people are not taking theirs. I believe this psychological problem, with a little patience, can be overcome.
The Amendment asks that there should be co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education. Reference has already been made to the experiments being made in industry in Lancashire and Scotland. In many works and offices a rota system operates, and in others the whole works and even towns close down altogether for a period. In many industries definite regulation is taking place by agreement between employers and workers. In London Transport there is an understanding as to the period in which the holidays shall be taken. London busmen divide themselves into two main groups—45 per cent. go on holiday between April and September, and the remainder take part of their holiday in the winter and part at other special times. There are other special arrangements made in other parts of the country. The Ministry of Labour might lend a hand by surveying regions and seeing what local arrangements could be made. They might encourage utility companies and local authorities to look at this problem with a little more sympathy. They might also urge, in the case of some types of employer, the possibility of holidays starting in the middle of the week with a view to relieving weekend congestion.
There must be co-ordination between industry and education. I understand that the teachers are not antagonistic to the suggestion, and are prepared to cooperate with local education committees. In respect of higher education there are difficulties in connection with examinations, but if the Board of Education would busy itself with the universities even that difficulty could be overcome. Already there is considerable co-operation in different parts of the country between local authorities and industry as to the time when holidays might be taken. I attach great importance to the question of school holidays. I want more and more parents not only to have holidays given them but to be able to enjoy them. When holidays are concentrated in one part of the year, when prices are highest, it is very difficult for parents with growing families to take their holidays away from their homes at that time. We know the type of holiday that the mothers get. At best the families can go only to a boarding house and buy their own food, and the mother has all her household duties repeated during the holidays.
I sometimes hesitate to believe that even if holidays with pay are conceded holidays are possible for large numbers of working people. It is difficult for them to pay not only the maximum prices charged in the peak season but to meet even the normal costs out of season. In October, 1935, the Ministry of Labour published a statement showing the weighted average of actual earnings of industrial workpeople at that time. It showed that the average earnings of industrial workers were then only 50s. If you averaged that over the whole of the year the earnings would be much less. Hon. Members have seen recently the report of the Beveridge Committee on Unemployment Insurance. In a test, there were no less than 25 per cent. of the workers whose incomes were examined, drawing less than 49s. a week. I suggest that married people bringing up a family or buying a house or home cannot afford, with wages such as these, to get a holiday. Least of all, can they afford it when they have to take their holiday at a period in the year when prices are highest. We have somehow to make cheap facilities available for workers out of season as well as in season, and it is a useful thing that a number of holiday associations have been applying their minds to this problem.
In this country we do not want to see what has happened abroad, particularly in the totalitarian States. The paternalism applied to the workers through the "Strength through Joy" movement is far too disciplined and not sufficiently individualistic for British ways. There is room nevertheless for inquiring whether some social provision can be made to assist the workers to the better enjoyment of holidays, and holidays out of season. We regard holidays as necessary for physical wellbeing. This House has been prepared to grant money for the physical fitness campaign. We might look at the problem whether some help can be given to municipalities to organise cheap types of camps, and to public utility companies that are prepared to organise certain types of facilities on a non-profit basis. There is room for inquiry into this problem in some of its social aspects. Certain steps have been taken abroad. In Belgium and France, I believe, special railway facilities are available for working people when they want to take their holidays. It would be unfortunate if the Govern-

ment were to adopt a laissez faireattitude, and a policy of drift in this matter.
There are two further suggestions I would like to put. One was suggested by the Mover of the Amendment. We might consider some readaptation of the dates of the bank holidays, that Whitsuntide should be fixed on the first Monday in June, and Bank Holiday the first Monday in September. The latter date would break up the long period between summer and Christmas. August Bank Holiday has no connection with church festivals. The only saint mixed up with it is St. Lubbock, who was a banker—not usually considered good material for saints. This idea is worth pursuing because it would have valuable psychological effects. The other suggestion, which has also emerged in the Debate, is that we might consider whether our own vacations in this House can be altered. Is it not reasonable to suggest that the House should rise at the end of June and meet earlier in the autumn, instead of stewing here in the heat in July when we might be far better employed elsewhere?
I hope the Amendment will have the endorsement of the Government and the House, and that we shall see to it that the Board of Education and the Ministry of Labour are brought together and some definite effort made towards bringing about this necessary voluntary reform of the spread-over of holidays.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Markham: We have just listened to a speech so effective that I do not think it could be excelled in a Debate of this kind. The hon. Member has spoken with a large amount of experience, but I think he glossed over too easily the way in which the Government might effect the desired change. As I see the psychological objection to the spread-over it is that ever since there have been holidays the people have had a tendency to regard them as belonging rightly and properly to August, and wherever you get firms offering discretion to their employés regarding the time when they will take their holidays, the lucky ones are considered to be those who can get late July and early August. It is important to understand the reason for this, because it is the greatest obstacle in securing an adequate spread-over. In the


first place, we have the fact that the Easter and the Whitsun holidays take care of the early months of the year, and that in the later months of the year we have no similar holiday period to compensate for those two. Therefore, there is a natural tendency for all who have a free choice to take their holiday later in the summer, but not too late to miss the good weather.
It is a common misunderstanding that August is a good month for weather. That is entirely erroneous. It is true that it is a warm month, but it is also one of the muggiest and one of the wettest months in the year, and the Ministry of Health, in their keep-fit campaign, ought to get out a poster with the slogan: "If you want weather that is going to upset you take your holiday in August." Meteorological statistics are vitally important in breaking down the public misconception as to the value of an August holiday. Compare August with June. Wherever you may go throughout the length and breadth of this land June has two hours more sunshine a day than August, and an inch per month less rain, and the air itself is fresher. The quality of fresh air is determined among other things by the amount of moisture in it; if air is very moisture-laden it is muggy air, which makes you feel lazy and lethargic. Of all the months in the year the most bracing and the sunniest is June. Therefore, if we could get the idea of June for holidays into the public mind it would be the first step towards breaking down the present prejudice in favour of August.
The meteorological factor is so much more important when we realise that the average man or woman in this country is essentially an indoor person. On the average we spend 20 hours out of the 24 indoors; only at the week-ends and at holiday times do we get a chance to appreciate God's sunshine and the winds that blow. Therefore, it is essential that when the week's holiday does come it should be taken at that period of the year when it will be most beneficial from every point of view. I suggest seriously to the Ministry of Health that in their keep-fit campaign they should pay attention to encouraging people to take their holidays in the months when the weather is at its best and sunniest. Other factors might be mentioned, such as ultra-violet rays and other forms of radiation, but I will not weary the House with those details.
My second point is that it has been assumed, and I think wrongly assumed, that the Government could, by the waving of a wand, secure a spread-over of holidays. It is not so. In the first place, that would require compulsory powers, and I do not think that is suggested. Our industries keep in the main to the later days of July and to August for holidays, and it is suggested that the reason is that the schools have holidays in August. Then it is said that the Board of Education should act, but already the Board have put power in this connection completely into the hands of the local authorities. I think it is essential that the House should have the sense of Section 170 of the Education Act, 1921. explained. It hands over to the local education authorities, I think completely, the decision as to the length and duration of the school terms. The local education authorities can determine when the school holidays should take place, and they in turn can consult with the local industries on the subject.

Mr. Cove: The Board of Education exercise great influence.

Mr. Markham: It is true that the Board have great influence, and that by recommendations they could probably secure a spread-over in the various areas, and I suggest that perhaps that is the best line of approach to the problem, but I would also say that the areas should not be too small. It would be wrong and would create too much confusion to work out a system either by county boroughs or by counties. There ought to be much wider areas. We might experiment with the whole of Wales. Wales, as we know, is one of the wettest parts of the country and has a heavy rainfall in August, therefore no one in Wales should take their holidays in August. Scotland is in a similar position in being singularly destitute of sunshine. Those are two areas which a meteorologist would pick out automatically for the purpose, because the South of England has much more sunshine than those parts of the country.
Finally, let me stress this point. The effective speech made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) had one singular omission. It was extremely grudging in its treatment of the Government as regards the way in which


they are getting holidays with pay for all workers. He said that holidays with pay had been extended to 1,500,000 more workers in the last year or two, and he might at least have had the courage and audacity to have said "Thank you" to the Government.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Owen Evans: I am sure the House is greatly relieved to discuss such a refreshing question as that of holidays and the health of the nation after having been occupied for 15 days in discussing a gloomy subject in a gloomy atmosphere. I should like to express my grateful thanks for the very notable contribution given us on this subject by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), who has had great experience of it, and I should also like to express my appreciation of the action of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) in choosing this subject for discussion. It is clear that it is a subject which has created already very great interest in the House and the hon. Member covered the ground very adequately as to questions affecting transport companies, hotel keepers and landladies in holiday resorts.
I should like to refer briefly to another aspect of the question, and that is the utilisation of leisure itself and the facilities for its enjoyment. It is common knowledge that a great advance has been made in the last 40 or 50 years. More and more leisure has been gained by both the wage-earning and the salaried classes in this country in the form of a shorter working day and a shorter working week. But we have begun to realise that split leisure on the lines of one or one-and-ahalf days a week is not enough, and does not satisfy the desire of ordinary human beings for some continuity of rest from their labours. People have become more conscious of the fact that immoderate labour at all times exhausts both mind and body. The so-called black-coated workers have been in advance of the wage earners in his respect in that they have succeeded in securing more liberal holidays.
When I was young it was quite unusual for a clerk, or a shop assistant to get more than about one week's holiday a year, or perhaps a fortnight, and that included Sundays. Now we find there

has been a progressive increase in the length of the holiday, according to length of service, up to even three weeks or a month a year, but in industry we are still far behind the practice of Government Departments, which set a good example, because among the senior ranks there the holidays reach 36 or 48 working days a year. I have never understood why the seniors in Government Departments are in need of longer holidays than those engaged in industrial occupations, and have never been able to understand the differentiation between the skilled artisan and, shall I call him, the quill driver, the ordinary clerk. They are all wage earners and workers in industry. Great progress has been made, and I feel sure it must be a great satisfaction to the House that we have before us an Amendment which is likely to be acceptable to the general body of the House, expressing the view that there is an increasing trend towards granting holidays with pay to industrial workers.
It has been my privilege to be associated with an industry which for 35 years has given holidays with pay to the workers, and that has not caused any difficulties. We have been able to spread out the holidays. Only this morning I was inquiring how far the workers in that industry had availed themselves of the holiday with pay, desiring to know whether they had been content to remain at home doing their gardens, or walking about doing nothing, or had been in the habit of going away, and I found that the bulk of them took advantage of the holiday to go to the seaside or the country, or to see their friends or relatives. Once the worker has the time and the means to take a holiday he will avail himself of it, like every other reasonable human being.
It is clear from this Debate, from the signs which we see in the newspapers and the discussions we hear, that we are on the eve of a very great revolution in this matter, and that the time is coming when it will not be exceptional, but the rule, for a man in industry to have as a right, as an implied term of his contract, a period of rest from his labour each year, a time which he can happily call his very own. We have heard of the psychological effect of holidays. One of the principal factors in the value of a holiday is that a man is able to say, "For the next few days at any rate I


can call my time my own. I can devote it to my family, or to any pursuit which I am fond of, I can go where I like and do what I like," and that is an extremely valuable feeling for any man to have.
We have to face a new situation, even a revolution, owing to the inevitable trend of industrial practice, apart from whatever legislation may be necessary in order to bring unenlightened and backward employers into line with the recognised practice. I do not know what report will be issued by the committee which is sitting on this matter, but I believe that gradually all employers will come into line and will grant this concession. The result will undoubtedly be a tremendous impetus to recreation and to the desire to travel. Hitherto, men have felt unable to leave their own districts, but when they are able to do what they like they will begin to feel that they have not seen their own country and they will be anxious to know it better. They have heard of places round the coast, such as Blackpool and Porthcawl, and they will say:" I would like to see those places." We know from our experience that those men will avail themselves of the opportunity to travel, if they have the means and the time for it. Millions of men will grasp that opportunity.
We have heard to-day that the plight of the railway companies is bad in August, but the plight of the people who use the railways is much worse. I saw in a newspaper that the four main line railway companies usually carry 23,000,000 more passengers in August than in May. There are holiday resorts in my constituency, which has one of the finest bits of coast—[Laughter.] I invite hon. Members to test that statement any time they like. In the holiday resorts and in the village in which I live, and which has 5o or so houses, there is great overcrowding in August. Prices soar in the holiday season above the level of the wage-earner's means. In such cases it is clear that man, wife and child do not derive as much benefit as they should.
At Paddington, Euston and other main line termini, you see, in the period just preceding Bank Holidays, mothers with children in arms, and other children, sitting on anything they can find, and resting themselves. They wait for hours for a series of trains going out, and they never know when their train does go out,

or when they are likely to reach their destination. I remember once travelling before the national holiday in August. We got to Carmarthen long after midnight, although the train was supposed to start at five minutes to four. What will happen when millions of people have the time and the means to satisfy their desire to enjoy the country, to fly, in other words from town to country as flying from chains? I submit to the Minister that these matters are worth consideration. I am willing to throw flowers at him if he likes it.

Viscountess Astor: Who does not?

Mr. Evans: I sincerely believe that the Minister has certain qualities which are not common in all Ministers in these days. One quality which he has is enthusiasm.

Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear

Mr. Evans: Yes, and he is also full of energy. I hope that the Minister will realise that this is a problem to which he might very well devote his attention and his mind. Not only have we to provide the time and the financial means for the enjoyment of leisure in this country, but we have to provide facilities for leisure. Apart from the split leisure to which I have referred, just an hour per day or the shorter week, a man who works eight hours will have perhaps 16 hours out of the 24 for himself. What is he to do with those 16 hours? Municipal authorities have provided for him to some extent. They have considered it their duty to try to meet the needs of these people, during the time when they are not at work, by sport, libraries, concerts and facilities of that character, designed to enable those people to enjoy their leisure. The same kind of thing must be done in order to provide for this larger leisure, this continuity of rest, which every man should have, from labour. I invite the Minister to devote his attention to that problem.
Difficulties have been pointed out. Speaking again from experience, we know that in some factories there are continuous processes, such as chemical processes, and that the machinery never rests. In those cases the holidays must be at different times. The work must continue, and the holidays must be spread over a long period of the year. In the factories with which I have connection we spread the holidays from May to the end of September or the beginning of October.


In some cases—and this is why I suggest that the Board of Education comes into the matter—there is a problem in regard to the children who are at school. A great deal cannot be done in the way of holidays if father and mother are unable to go away with their family. The Board of Education might exercise discretion and bring influence to bear upon local authorities to enable children to go away, say in May, without losing the benefit of school. It seems that it is impossible to continue the elementary schools throughout the year and in the month of August, and there is a somewhat difficult problem. It should not be impossible to organise the schools in such a way that they do not close down except for one week and that the holidays are spread over. I suggest that the Minister might very well take that matter in hand.
I said at the beginning that this was not a problem only of the convenience and advantage of those who cater for holiday-makers but the matter is still important from their point of view. Let us remember that these people desire to give the best service, and if holiday places are congested in August it means that they cannot give an adequate welcome and the best service to holiday-makers. It would be a great advantage and would give these people an easier time to spread the holiday and not put it all on the plate in August. I can think of nothing better than that holiday-makers should be able to see the country at its best time, or than establishing in the mind of the townsman and of the worker in factories a love of the country by organising rational methods and schemes by which they can visit the country and be
far from the madding crowd
I represent a constituency which caters very largely for visitors to the coast from great cities like Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Birkenhead and Liverpool, and more and more people come there today. During this kind of weather, what greater benefit can we give to the working man than enabling him to see the flaming gorse in full bloom in the country? Although the working man may have to earn his living in a coal mine, his heart is in the highlands. The hearts of many of the miners of South Wales are, in the words of Wordsworth,
in the sweet shires of Cardiganshire.

This movement can be influenced only from the centre, from the Ministries concerned, and especially by co-ordination between the Ministries of Labour and Education. I hope that they will be able to do something in the matter and that the Amendment will commend itself to the House.

5.41 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I shall not keep the House very long. [Laughter.] That is a firm promise. This Amendment raises what is almost essentially a woman's question. [Horn. MEMBERS:" Oh.-] Yes, because hon. Members have spoken of holidays with families, and everybody knows that the people who most need a holiday are the working mothers. I believe that the time will come when we shall see that the best way to give a working mother a holiday is to give her a holiday away from the children. At present that is usually impossible. A working mother should have a holiday completely away from her husband and her children. [Laughter.] That comes nearer to being like Heaven than anything else. I congratulate the Minister of Labour upon having gone so splendidly for holidays with pay, and I am certain that the whole of the country will be grateful to him.

Mr. A. Bevan: What has he done?

Viscountess Astor: You have got it in your programme, but he has done it. As usual, you are too late. I congratulate also my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) upon having brought up this question. We know, as hon. Members have said, that a free Government cannot impose this upon the country, but we know also that in our form of government once the people desire a thing it is for the Government to co-ordinate that desire and to co-ordinate different authorities and to see that it is brought about. That is all we are asking of the Minister now. It is very important to divide the country into large areas. If you do not do so the matter is much more difficult to handle. One hon. Member spoke about Scotland and Wales and East and West. I have thought a good deal about that. If we can divide the country into areas the matter will be much easier, but if it is going to be in small driblets it will be very difficult from every point of view,


and particularly from the point of view of education. I am certain that this is coming, and it is much better that we should do it under our free system by debating it in the House of Commons and then going back to the country and persuading people who are against it.
We are told by one hon. Member that it would be difficult, and the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) said that there was a fashion in holidays. In many ways the fashion is already broken. Many people want their holidays in June, but cannot get them because they have families. It will be easier for the Government to set the fashion, but I would ask them not to be too late about it. If we get more holidays with pay there is going to be the most appalling congestion. I come from a part of the country where we get a good many visitors. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was talking about Plymouth. I was not dealing with the fiction, but with the facts. I ought to have said the West country, which is almost the happiest playground of all. One of my friends was telling me about a certain town where prices are now quite reasonable, but in August are almost prohibitive for working people. I beg the Minister to realise what I am sure is right, that people will not only want this change, but will demand it, in time.
Hon. Members have talked about the crowds on the railways at holiday times, and I myself have known people with families, and particularly women, to return from their holidays far more exhausted than they were when they went. We might well, as one hon. Member suggested, adopt for ourselves certain facilities which they have in totalitarian States. There they have certain things which we might well copy on a voluntary basis. We understand that this reform cannot be brought about at once, but we can help by ventilating the matter in this House and letting the Minister and the Government realise that the country is agreed upon it.
Moreover, this is not only a problem of leisure. People have to be educated for leisure. One hon. Member said that people want to go about in herds, but, the more people are educated, the more they want to spend their leisure in seclusion. The less educated people are, the more they want to go and sit about in crowds. There are many people who

are far more educated than their grandfathers, and, when the time for holidays comes, they want to spend it in a cultural atmosphere, and not herded together in seaside towns and boarding houses. I beg the Minister not to say what he cannot do, but what he can do. He is unlike most Ministers. Even on the Sabbath he never takes a rest. We beg him to assure the country that he will be up and doing about this question as he is about others. We are grateful to him for what he has done, and we are also grateful for the magnificent speeches that have been made from all quarters of the House to-day. They have shown a realisation that this is a matter about which the country is deeply agreed.

5.48 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): The late hon. Member for Farnworth, Mr. Guy Rowson, was an extremely fortunate man when the luck of the Ballot enabled him to give the Minister of Labour the opportunity of appointing one of the most powerful committees ever appointed to deal with a matter to which very great importance is rightly attached, namely, holidays with pay. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) has raised in his Amendment, not the wide question of holidays with pay, although that question has been dicussed in the course of the Debate, but the narrower issue of how holidays can be organised. I am sure we have all found it delightful to have an atmosphere in which everyone seems to be agreed more or less. Everyone is agreed as to the desirability of holidays with pay, and everyone wants them spread. Of course, Members are not agreed as to where they want people to spend their holidays, and, of course, my Noble Friend the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has one great advantage over the rest of the House, in that she represents a constituency which is about the only one in this island where you can hear the band and see the Sound. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. D. 0. Evans) referred to a delightful little place in his constituency. I had my head broken there with a stone. It was a political meeting, but I bore no malice.
Everyone seems to be agreed that there are far too many crowds at holiday times, but I am not at all sure about that.


After all, it is quite clear from one's reading of history that man is a gregarious animal, and that people like to go in crowds. It is only the exceptional person who likes a solitary holiday. I expect that before the Debate is over one or two Members will desire to speak about the beauty of the seascape around these islands, but I hope that something will be said about the joys and beauties of the inland resorts, large and small, which are to be found in this country in such profusion. If for a moment the Minister of Labour may be permitted to allow any little poetic quality that may be in him to peep out, I would say that it is very natural that in this island we should talk freely about holidays with pay, because we have much to show people when they get their holidays, whether they be our own people or those, to whom the hon. Member for Shipley referred in his admirable speech, who come in hundreds and thousands from all over the world to this island. One poet, indeed, has said about this island of ours that it is:
Infinite riches in a little room.
I doubt whether there is any country that contains so many varieties of land and seascape within so small a compass. Since I was born in the loveliest of seaside places in this island, Torquay, perhaps I may be allowed to quote——

Mr. Kirkwood: Have you seen Rothesay?

Mr. Brown: I am quite prepared, with the hon. Member, to sing the praises of Rothesay, and I hope, if I am spared till July, when the National Regatta is held there, to get a week-end and sail down the Clyde and enjoy its beauties. I should like to quote a sentence written by Sir John Squire about one county, Devon, though the same might be said of others:
There, in a tiny square, are all manner of things: warm, red, almost Mediterranean coasts; grey, bare, northern coasts with great cliffs confronting the Atlantic rollers; low, melancholy, sandy coasts; high waste moorlands, rich pastures, rolling downs, thickly wooded valleys, and countless generations of the dwellings of men.
That is a very fine description of the variety which can attract those who get the opportunity of leisure and can enjoy it in seeing the beauties of our land.
I have been exhorted to do many things this afternoon, but, when I am

asked to take immediate action, I am in this position: I shall, of course, in a very short time, be compelled to give my consideration to this matter, because, as the House knows, the Holidays with Pay Committee has been sitting now for some months, facing the facts as to the national desire for this revolution, as it was called by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan. I think the House as a whole will agree that it would be a beneficent revolution. The Committee are facing the facts, and are not overlooking the difficulties—for there are difficulties; despite the keen desire to further this reform. Member after Member who has given detailed attention to the problem has talked about the difficulties and the obstacles that have to be overcome. Therefore, when I receive the report of the Committee—and I may say that I expect it almost immediately—I shall have to give concentrated attention to whatever recommendations they make. I shall not need any exhortation from Members of the House to do my duty, and I only hope that the report will be such that it will make my duty my delight also.
The Amendment deals first of all with the distribution of holidays throughout the summer months, and not with the wider issue of holidays with pay. Two main things are desirable in any arrangements with regard to holidays for industrial workers. The first is that they should be enabled to make the best possible use of a recognised break in their employment; and the second is that there should be the minimum amount of dislocation of industry in any arrangements made to that end. Of course, these two considerations will assume an added importance as holidays with pay extend more and more widely. They will create, as has already been pointed out, all sorts of problems—transport problems; the problems of the holiday resorts themselves; problems affecting the workers in those resorts; problems affecting the industries in which workers get holidays with pay; and last, but not least, problems affecting the schools.
Indeed, the extension that we have already seen recently of holidays with pay by collective agreement has created new and urgent problems for the railways as regards the provision of the travelling facilities, problems of accommodation and employment during holidays for the resorts themselves, and problems with re


gard to arrangements for family holidays, particularly where different members of the family are engaged in varying occupations and there are children of varying ages or children attending different types of schools. The Amulree Committee are approaching the completion of their work. They have considered the subject fully, and are fully aware of all the problems to which reference has been made in the discussion to-day. The committee have received evidence from the railway corn-panics, who have made representations with regard to questions of traffic facilities; evidence from certain industries with regard to the spread-over of holidays and their industrial effects; and evidence from the Board of Education as to the problem of school holidays. As has been pointed out in the Debate to-day, this last is an important aspect of the problem if full advantage is to be taken of increased facilities for holidays with pay.
In addition, the committee have received evidence from the International Labour Office with regard to the practices customs prevailing in such foreign countries as have, in a larger or smaller degree, systems of holidays with pay. The House will see, therefore, that the committee are fully aware of all the issues concerned, have received evidence upon them, and have examined the practical difficulties involved in any considerable extension of this reform, including that which is referred to in the Amendment. They will, of course, make recommendations based upon the evidence they have received.
I have been asked to accept the Amendment as it stands. The House will see at once that I could not do that, on the very technical ground that it would not be proper for a Minister to anticipate the findings of a committee, when he has appointed that committee to search out the issues and make their report, not merely about how the movement ought to be forwarded—whether by legislation, voluntarily, or by both methods—but also as to what solutions they propose for the obstacles and difficulties. I can assure the House that I am in complete sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment, and, in so far as the demand is made that there shall be, in any steps which may be taken to extend the holidays with pay, close co-operation between the Board of Education and the Ministry of Labour,

that co-operation will be assured. Not only will there be that co-operation between the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education, but there will be similar co-operation between us both and the other Ministries which will be affected, such as the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Health, by some sides of this problem.
One or two hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Shipley, referred to the question of camps and hostels. There are many people who like holidays not at the seaside but elsewhere. They prefer quiet and lonely holidays. They have to get to the destinations they seek. If they desire to have a hiking holiday and their means are not great, arrangements have to be made for them in hostels and camps, and arrangements can be made for them. The House will very soon now be in possession of the report of the committee, as I shall be myself, and I can assure the House that when I get the report it will have immediate and urgent consideration, and the fullest co-operative effort will be made in the various Departments concerned to see that the recommendations are examined in the spirit in which the committee offer them to the Government and the House.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I have heard few questions debated in this House with greater unanimity than this. I hope that the unanimity means that the solution of this problem will be found with speed and vigour. I am sure that that can be done. The Minister said that this might be done eventually by legislation or by voluntary effort. I would suggest another way, which is that we might set an example in this House. The spread over of holidays is equally important here. There are difficulties, I suppose; I have heard some of them enumerated; but I do not think that it is impossible to get over them. The holidays we have in this House—they are not small, compared with other people's holidays—were fixed a long time ago. Things have changed in this House since then, just as they have in regard to working conditions and social amenities in the country generally. We have approximately three months'—August, September and October—holiday in the summer; not quite, but very nearly. Why we should still he here in July, I do not know. We set


an example of going for our holidays in August, the peak month, when the greatest amount of difficulties exist for everybody. I think that that is a very bad example, and that we ought to make a change.

Mr. Kirkwood: The House rises in order to enable the rich to get away for 12th August.

Mr. Paling: I have heard that said, and there is something in it; but, as I have said, these holidays were fixed at a time which is long past. This House used to be the preserve of wealthy men, There are a lot of working men here to-day, and I hope there will be more in a short time. From every point of view, it is necessary that we should change our present system. We like to be fresh and in a position to give the best we have in us to the work of this House. I suggest that we could do that better in the winter months than in such a month as July. We have the three months of August, September and October, and we have five or six weeks—I am speaking approximately—from Christmas to the end of January. I suggest that January is an excellent month for working—but in any case, any month is better than July for work. I suggest that we should set an example, and that we can then better ask other people to do their duty in the matter also.

6.8 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I do not want to detain the House, but I have been listening to my right hon. Friend eulogising every seaside resort in the country except Colwyn Bay, which is in my constituency, and I am entitled to say one or two words on this subject. I represent a portion of the most beautiful coast in the world—and I say that after having returned from a tour of 30,000 miles in the southern ocean. I feel that the arguments which have been placed before the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson), the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) and others have been so cogent that it is no wonder that my right hon. Friend accepts in principle the unanimous view which exists in all parts of the House on this question. I appreciate his difficulty. I know there are immense problems involved. I want to draw the

attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education to one or two aspects of the matter. Educationists tell me that it is not impossible to work a scheme of double shifts in large schools. They also tell me that, in their view, there should be a fixed Easter. The end of the school term, they say, should finish after Easter, and the examination for the higher school certificate should be held just before Easter. I am told, by those who know far more about education than I do, that there are distinct educational advantages in that suggestion, apart from the repercussion it would have on this question of the spread-over of holidays.
Speaking as a medical man who practised in a seaside resort for 20 years, visiting boarding houses and hotels, I say without hesitation that, from the point of view of the tired worker, who is entitled to a seaside holiday in order to get rest and change and to rebuild his health, it is a most pernicious system that the holiday season should be concentrated into one month of the year—and that month not the best of the year, either. The seaside landlady is a much maligned character, but I should like to pay my tribute to her for her hard work and the way she meets her immense difficulties and her great poverty in the winter months, and for the interest she takes, not only from the financial point of view but from the point of view of the service she renders, in the hundreds of thousands of workers and others who go to our seaside resorts. I am very glad to hear that my right hon. Friend is going to get the co-operation of the Board of Education and the Ministry of Health on this question, because I have not the slightest doubt that, as the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), pointed out, workers now come back from their holidays, with their wives and children, after a harassing railway journey, suffering from the discomforts and in many cases the bad air, and feeling worse in health than they were previously.
There are advantages in the earlier months of the year. We know of workers who in the winter months have very bad chills, and many of them have to go back to their work before they should do, and have no opportunity of getting a holiday. There is no doubt that a holiday in late April or early May would be of immense


advantage. This National Government, during its seven years of office, has had a remarkable record of social legislation. I hope my right hon. Friend and those Ministers with whom he has promised to co-operate will take this old institution of the holiday under their wing. The tentacles of the State are spreading in every direction, and will continue to do so, whatever Government is in office. The holiday which was once regarded in this country almost with apology, and involved great sacrifices by the working man, is now vital to his life and existence. All employers are gradually coming round to this view. I hope the Government will concentrate on this matter, whatever the difficulties may be, and make this beneficent institution of the holiday worth while, and bring happiness and joy to the working population.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: The House has heard with great satisfaction, I have no doubt, that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour is taking such an interest in this matter, which is of such great moment in social development and progress. I heard with great interest his Devonian rhapsody, though I rather wished he had travelled a little further to those lands of supreme enchantment, like West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, where we are always willing to extend a welcome, as we do sympathy, to those who live in England in areas of industrial gloom. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) was saying that he had something to do with extending holidays and persuading many people to take holidays in foreign countries. I hope that his activities have extended to Cornwall. It is indeed a land of magic, where there is an archaic culture whose strange and ghostly relics can be found in almost every field, including the political. Fairy land though it is, it is not capable of holding everybody all at once, and, therefore, there must be some machinery in order to make these other worldly delights available as widely as they deserve to be. We have heard a great deal about psychological difficulties, but I hope—and indeed I feel sure—that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that this is only a psychological problem, because its solution depends upon taking thought.
There is nothing more important at the moment than to organise the resources of leisure. We are at last beginning to emerge from an industrial system which has had as one of its grossest defects the fact that while a few could take holidays, and protracted holidays, in comfortable circumstances, others—and the vast majority—either had no holidays at all or could take them only in circumstances of the greatest discomfort, and subject to crippling expense. It is for that reason that I regard this question as one of fundamental consequence in the organisation of society and the transition in the conditions of the people which is now so rapidly taking place. I do not suggest that there must be too rigid machinery, but we need something like a clearinghouse representative of the workers, local councils, and travelling bureaus and caterers, who shall organise this matter, or at any rate consider it and parcel it out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Holmes) said that it would be a good thing to have the Academy open at a different time, but even that would have to be thought out. My hon. Friend must have forgotten that some of the people in Cornwall who cater for visitors paint pictures while they are waiting for them, and he might fix the opening of the Academy at such a date that one would be forced to paint a picture while providing tea for a visitor, and it might be a very embarrassing matter indeed. I am not sure that the opening of the Royal Academy is a matter of such very great consequence. It might to some extent, if it were held in August, relieve the pressure upon the more enchanting parts of this country, which I wish to see at the service of those who work so hard. I would remind my hon. Friend that 20,000,000 more people travel in August than in May in this country, and it is time that that absurdity was relieved and that we applied our minds to this matter, which I believe to be the most important feature of that campaign in which we have all played our part to improve the physical fitness of the country.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Simpson: I do not rise to emulate the example of hon. Members in seaside salesmanship, but I am very grateful to find that there is likely to be an increasing


number of prospective clients and customers who will be interested in the efforts of the hon. Members representing seaside resorts. It may be somewhat unusual to find that social advance in one direction happens to be so rapid that it may very well cause some social embarrassment in other directions because of the absence of adequate provision, foresight and co-operation. The advantage of the increasing numbers of paid holidays will be largely neutralised unless there is some very definite, comprehensive and well-thought-out prevision in the matter of amenities, both in transport and at the resorts themselves. It has not been unusual for workers to have any amount of free time. When people have had free time accompanied with payment, it has been regarded as leisure and as something that was dignified, but, unfortunately, when that free time has not been paid for, it has been regarded as unemployment and as something definitely undignified. We all rejoice in the fact that the extension of paid holidays and leisure time is coming along in an increasing degree, and it is most important that we should organise in order to make the best of that newly-found leisure.
It is very necessary that, in the matter of transport, some effort should be made in this direction. The railways will be primarily affected. They have often been a source of irritation to the travelling public. It has been said that they have neither a body to be kicked nor a soul to be damned. When people have been subject to irritation and disappointment, very properly, I suppose, they have sought some physical object on which to vent their wrath. It would be unreasonable, if not impossible, for the railway companies of this country to provide the necessary amount of locomotive power and all the vehicles required for two or three weeks' big traffic rush, and to have no use for them for the remainder of the year. The holiday should start with the journey itself, and we should endeavour to provide that the journey should be part of the holiday and provide some kind of change and pleasure. To travel 16 or 20 in a compartment, suffering all the discomforts associated with August Bank holiday would certainly rob the holiday of any possibility of that. It is no fault

of the transport organisations when they have thrust upon them at these peak periods the amount of traffic with which it is impossible to cope.
It certainly is the business of the transport organisations to study the problem and make the maximum effort in order to meet the requirements of the community. This is essentially a problem in the solution of which they need and deserve the co-operation of the community itself. We seem to be especially conservative in the matter of holidays, and the tradition of a few chosen weeks seems to override all the practical claims of other periods for a decent and healthy holiday. In the matter of sunshine, rainfall and daylight, earlier and later times than those which are usually chosen are more than justified as reasons for taking a holiday. This problem involves the schools and the education authorities. One has found the education authorities very rigid and difficult in the matter of accommodation of this kind. If we consider that a holiday ought to be educational—and it certainly can be made so—we ought to anticipate the ready co-operation of education authorities in order that the holiday periods might be made more educational and helpful and advantageous than they are under existing conditions. Someone has said that a fool wanders but a wise man travels. It is certainly a very effective form of education, if people can enjoy holidays under decent conditions, see the beauties of the country and have an opportunity of pursuing studies in connection therewith.
These opportunities and advantages can seriously be neutralised if the transport accommodation is inefficient. I hope that with the increasing numbers of people who will be permitted to take advantage of a paid holiday, the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Education will do everything possible to assist those who are responsible for the transport, the provision of amenities, educational facilities, amusement, and other provisions at our seaside resorts, in order that the maximum advantage may be secured from the increasing numbers of paid holidays. I hope that the Ministers concerned will exert every effort to achieve that co-operation, which will be of assistance to those who will have to provide these facilities, and will be of great advantage to those who take holidays.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Rathbone: I want to put rather a different aspect of the subject from that which has been put to-day. Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has done so from the point of view of seaside resorts as such. I want to put the position of the rather small places. I am thinking particularly of the places in Cornwall where the presence of visitors comes not as a trade in itself but as a welcome help, and I would almost say salvation, to a great many farmers, and more particularly to a great many fishermen. Those fishermen might well not he there now. They might have left the sea and gone permanently inland and taken jobs ashore, if it had not been for the presence of visitors in little places like Looe, Polperro and Fowey, which the Minister of Labour visited with me last summer and which he will, therefore, have fresh in his mind.
The holiday season, as it is at present, comes to those fishermen somewhat as a five-course meal would come to a starving man. It gives him nothing but indigestion, when what he needs is a succession of small and regular meals. That is what they need down there. We have so many people dependent on the tourist traffic that they are apt to try and keep going all through the hard winter months a house which is really too large for them. Their husbands may not be able to go to sea because the weather is against them, or there may be a glut of fish on the market.
These crowds in a limited period are a nuisance not only to themselves but to the natives. The natives, in order to make ends meet over the rest of the year, have to charge the high prices that have been referred to. They get a bad name for congestion. Congestion in a small place, a little fishing port tucked away down a hill, in infinitely worse than congestion in big places such as Blackpool, where there is a certain amount of elasticity. Another thousand in Blackpool would scarcely be here or there, but a matter of a couple of dozen people in these small places makes all the difference. These small places depend to a tremendous extent on tourist traffic. If the holidays could be spread out—I am thinking of earlier in the year rather than later—it would be of immense advantage to everybody.
Visitors who have to take their holidays in August cannot possibly appreciate Cornwall. They cannot realise what Cornwall is like in spring. They do not realise that the best period in Cornwall is the spring. It is then that the flowers are out and the banks are covered with successions of primroses, bluebells, foxgloves, valerian and all the other wealth of blooms. When people have to go there in August they do not get the full benefit that they might otherwise get. I will not go into the question why August should, for some curious reason, have become the one period which everybody considers to be par excellence when they have to take their holidays. There have been various causes. There is the question of the squire going on his shooting or his fishing. There are people who say they must give their employés their holidays in August because that is the slack season. I suggest that they have got things the wrong way round. The reason why the season is slack is that people have gone on their holidays. If people went on their holidays at other times there would not be the slackness. If we spread over the holidays we should get rid of these tremendous peak periods.
I never like to make a speech either in the House or elsewhere without trying to make some practical suggestion as to how a problem can be solved. The point with which I am about to deal was referred to by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones). I refer to the necessity of steering clear of week-ends for the beginning and the ending of holidays. There will always be week-enders, particularly in the summer, people who make a habit, either when they are on holidays or when they are at business, of getting away at the week-ends. Would it be possible to bear in mind that when holidays are being organised and large firms are closing down their works or when schools are closing down, they should see to it, if possible, that the holidays should begin and end not at the week-end but in mid-week?
As regards factories, it is becoming an increasing custom for whole factories to close down for a couple of weeks; a custom which everybody must welcome. These factories could surely be classified. I would instance the engineering works and the motor car manufacturers. Would it be possible to establish a rota whereby,



say, the Morris, the Ford and the Austin works should arrange to take their holidays in, say, May, June and July? They could arrange to change about. This year one firm might take its holiday in May, the next year in June and the next in July, so that each in turn would have a fair chance of sharing what may be considered the special period which everybody wants.
Often the people in the factories are, even when the factories close down, dependent on the school holidays because of their children. One hon. Member spoke about Eton giving a lead again on this question of the schools, but you cannot segregate one type of school from another type of school, because there will always be parents who have perhaps one child at an elementary school, another at a secondary school and perhaps another at the university. That is a growing custom. Therefore, you cannot segregate these different classes of schools. You have to segregate district by district, so that you will have a mixture of schools taking their holidays at a given time and a mixture of schools taking their holidays at another time.
Whatever difficulties there may be, I am sure that there is nobody more qualified to tackle them than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. He has had many problems to tackle. I realise, however, that to a great extent this question is going to fall on the President of the Board of Education and on the Board of Education. With good will—and I would stress the necessity for good will, for voluntary arrangements are infinitely more satisfactory in the long run than anything that may be drawn up and imposed by compulsion—something can be done, and the nation can be made to realise what fools they are in concentrating their holidays in August, and to realise the great benefits there are in different parts of the country at different seasons. It is not that everybody must go to a certain place at a certain season. Cornwall is good earlier in the season, while places like Westmorland are better later in the season. There is no reason why everybody should not get a good holiday at any time in the summer. I am sure that we all desire to back up the Government in whatever measures they may take towards this end.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Almost every hon. Member who has spoken has proclaimed the suitability of his own constituency as a seaside resort. The local guide book describes my constituency as "The Scarborough of the Tyne." We have a very fine promenade and, greatest advantage of all in this country, we have a free pier, which will take people out for more than a mile into the North Sea, in the most bracing part of the German Ocean. You can really see the sea there, and not mud. It is a thoroughly delectable place.
I should like to deal with what has been called the scholastic problem, which really depends upon the universities. We have to realise that the university terms were fixed hundreds of years ago in order to enable the undergraduates to go home and take their proper share in the ordinary agricultural pursuits of the country. I do not know how many undergraduates at Oxford and Cambridge use the long vacation in order to assist in the various harvests, but I should imagine that they are surprisingly few. The whole education system of the country is so designed as to ensure that the youth shall move up from the secondary school or the public school to the university at the commencement of the October term. If we could get the universities to alter their year to the calendar year or to the year commencing after Easter, a great deal of the scholastic problem would disappear and a great deal of what is called, I think somewhat surprisingly, the problem of "staggering" holidays, would be much easier than it is at the moment.
I hope that the Board of Education in dealing with this problem will enlist the sympathy of the universities and endeavour to get their archaic system of terms altered so as to facilitate the matter for the rest of the schools. The secondary school is designed to send the youth to the university in October, and it also takes pupils in at that time, while the elementary school, again desiring to send its pupils forward to the secondary school, has to arrange the school year in the same way. Unless the universities alter their system of terms, a good deal of the advantage that might be obtained in the secondary and elementary schools by that change will be spoilt. I sincerely


hope that the Board of Education will be able to enlist the sympathy of the two old universities and the modern universities in making the necessary changes in their time tables.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Henry Haslam: The Debate which has taken place on the Amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) has shown extraordinary unanimity as to the desirability and the necessity of spread-over holidays. Holidays are particularly necessary in the case of industrial workers. The increasing strain of industry and the increased mental concentration required, together with the monotony of many of the processes, make it vitally necessary that the industrial workers should take holidays on every opportunity that offers. They desire to do that and they are doing so, not only during holiday times but at week-ends with more and more frequency. This movement for extension of holidays has my full support and sympathy. This is a question above all of health. It is a necessity for the community under modern conditions that holiday-making and travel should take place. June is a drier month and has more sunshine than August. The average rainfall for June for more than 30 years past has been 2.64 inches as against 3.88 inches in August. That is half as much again. Therefore, the talk about the better weather of August is incorrect. Everybody knows that there is greater freshness of air and there are greater beauties on the countryside in the earlier months. The period from mid-April to mid-July is far too much neglected as a holiday period.
The holiday question must also be viewed from another aspect, and that is the congestion of the present system. The congestion which takes place must be very deleterious to health, particularly in the case of the children. When all this crowding and crushing occur at holiday resorts, on railway trains and on motor buses, it is the children who suffer the most. Therefore, there is a much greater benefit to be derived by our getting away from the tremendous congestion that occurs. Another objection to congested holidays is that of the sanitary troubles that arise.
I should like to say a few words on the question of the employés in the seasonal

resorts. The hon. Member for Blackpool dealt with this matter with a good deal of force, and I agree with everything that he said. In these resorts the employés are divided into two classes—those who reside in the resort and those who are imported for the season. The position of the resident workers is highly unsatisfactory in places where there is a short season. If their position is bad in Blackpool, it is far worse in Skegness, in my constituency, which is much resorted to by the workers of the Midlands. In Skegness, the season is a very short one—a month, six weeks or possibly two months. The resident workers have hardly anything to do outside the season, apart from a little work at Christmas, Easter and Whitsun; for the whole of the winter months, apart from an occasional job, they have no work to do, and in present circumstances, they receive no unemployment benefit. There were no less than 900 unemployed in the peak months of December and February out of a population of just over 9,000, that is to say, 10 per cent. The House will realise that that involves a considerable amount of distress. Moreover, many other people, such as taxi drivers, have very little to do during the slack winter months. It is also interesting to note that, among the resident workpeople, no less than 300 were unemployed in the month of June.
If holidays were spread over the early months of the summer, it would at any rate give steady work to these people for five or six months of the year, and thus would very much improve their position and would enable them to draw their unemployment benefit for a longer period. What is true of the employé is equally true of all those concerned in the industries which cater for visitors. Many hon. Members have spoken about the expensiveness of holidays. Naturally, if holidays are taken only in the month of August, they are expensive, for that is the only month in which those engaged in the catering trades can do business. If holidays were spread over five months of the year, not only would the prices fall, but there would be much better service for visitors. The spread-over of holidays would also affect the position of imported labour. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour knows only too well the immense difficulties that there have been in recent years in obtaining imported labour for the simple reason that


it is required only for the month of August, and that then the work is extremely strenuous, so that the unfortunate workers do not get much time for themselves. If holidays were spread over five or six months of the year, the obtaining of imported labour would be a very much different proposition. With regard to the Amendment, with which I heartily agree, I would like to comment on one point. It reads:
The growing tendency to grant annual holidays with pay to industrial workers makes it advisable for the Government …
Certainly, it is "advisable," but it is more than that; it is absolutely necessary that the Government should do something in this matter, because unless something is done there will be no holidays with pay, for it will not be possible either for the transport companies to take the people or for the seaside resorts to contain them during the month of August. Something must be done immediately. In the Midland area, there will be tens of thousands of additional holiday makers next summer. I was interested to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool that in Lancashire there has been a spread-over of holidays for some time, and that the remainder of the country is in the position of not having done what Lancashire has done. My hon. Friend pointed out that the organisation was done town by town, and therefore, I am inclined to suggest that, particularly in the Midlands and in the smaller towns, a spread-over town by town might perhaps be the most effective system. In many towns, if an industry is closed down for a holiday period, the whole town is involved. I believe that will be the case in Coventry this year, where the engineers, I believe, for the first time, are going to have a week's holiday. If a big industry in a town were closed down for a certain week in May, June or July, it would naturally follow that other industries would do the same thing; and the question of school holidays would be solved, since the municipal authority would fall into line, as we have heard they are willing to do. Therefore, I think that at the beginning the organisation of the spread-over town by town would be the best method. I believe that the spread-over of holidays is certain to come, and the only doubt in my mind is whether it will come in time

to prevent much inconvenience and hardship to holidaymakers. I hope that something will be done this summer, by way of making a start, in bringing in this most necessary reform.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I regard this as being one of the most important domestic questions that has been raised in the House recently. The question of the spread-over of holidays is really part of the general question of the mobility of labour. It may seem peculiar to put it in that way, in view of the fact that we are now considering workers on holiday, but holidays have an influence on the remainder of the working year, because, as the House will agree, the more the workers enjoy holidays, the more efficient they are when they return to their work. I cannot say that I wish to throw any flowers at the Minister of Labour and his right hon. Friends, but I wish to congratulate one or two hon. Members. I would like to congratulate one hon. Member, a Welshman, for having had the good sense to say that his heart is in the Highlands first and in Wales secondly; I wish to congratulate the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), whose speech was extremely funny; I wish to congratulate the Minister of Labour for congratulating hon. Members on this side on the speeches which they have made; and finally, may I congratulate the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and his hon. Friend who so sensibly supported him, on raising this matter of great public importance? Last year, when I had the privilege of introducing a Bill dealing with holidays with pay, hon. Members opposite were inclined to throw not flowers, but cauliflowers. On that occasion, unfortunately, neither the Mover nor the Seconder of the Amendment which is before us to-day spoke or supported the Bill. At that time, one hon. Member after another from the benches opposite opposed holidays with pay.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: Is it not a fact that at that time an announcement had been made that a committee would be appointed to look into the whole question, and that the feeling on this side of the House, as well as in many other quarters, was that it would be better to wait until that committee had reported?

Mr. MacMillan: That is true. I am well aware that the Government sheltered themselves behind a committee at that time. We were told that it would be very discourteous of the House if it came to a decision on that Bill owing to the fact that there was a departmental committee sitting. We were told that it was a very powerful committee, we were given a list of the people sitting on it, and we were asked whether there were better people in the whole country. We were told that it was anticipated that the report of the committee would be a very fine one, covering all the points, and telling us everything about holidays with pay. Yet, only the other day the Minister of Labour, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), said that holidays with pay on the voluntary principle were preferable. In saying that, the right hon. Gentleman anticipated the report of the committee, and killed the very argument that was used against us when we brought forward the Bill last year.
Having said that, I will again revert to throwing flowers. The hon. Member has raised this matter at an opportune time, for hon. Members themselves will soon be going on holiday. The hon. Member made a very fine speech, as did his hon. Friend who seconded him, and I am glad to give him full credit for being happy always to support holidays with pay, either compulsorily or otherwise. I think it would be a good thing if we could bring some of the workers to the Gallery of the House of Commons during their holidays so that they could see the House at work; that might contribute towards making them more efficient when they returned to their own work, or console them with the thought that they could not work any worse than we work here. I believe that one important factor of the question of holidays with pay and the question of the spread-over of the holiday period is that we pay the wrong people. We should be paying the children in the elementary and secondary schools to grow up and become better citizens. We should pay mothers for bearing children and for bringing them up. We should pay workers for taking holidays to make themselves better workers and better contributors to the production of the nation's wealth. We do none of these things.
I think that one important thing which we ought to be discussing to-day in relation to this Amendment is something in the nature of a geographical spread-over of holidays. As there is no Member from the North of Scotland present at the moment, I think I am safe in saying that the North of Scotland is an area which is not overcrowded and which is practically ignored by holiday-makers. A few more sensible, or more fortunate, people go to the North of Scotland because they are able to do so. But there is an area one-fifth the size of Great Britain, and if you were to take all the beauty and all the attractions of the rest of the Kingdom you would still not have as much beauty as we have in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In that area there is ample room for the great holiday crowds which at present go for their holidays from one city to another, where they are crowded together. For my own part I believe in splendid isolation to some extent at holiday time. I suggest to hon. Members opposite, some of whom I know do go to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, that they should advertise among their constituents that it is possible for them to take an uncrowded holiday in a district where there is plenty of peace and quiet, and where there is no need for them to crowd into trains and trams and insufferable buses.
There is another point in this connection, which comes very much within the province of the Minister of Transport. This is a question of transport organisation. Unfortunately, certain people prefer to keep the Highlands and Islands of Scotland as a holiday paradise for themselves. For my part, I think that the landowners' private monopoly of all the streams and lochs, and mountains and glens has been one of the curses of Scotland. We wish to see the millions of the people there, where they can look across many miles of ocean and feel that they are remote from the troubles of city life. I am sure millions of people would take that opportunity if there were a decent system of transport to take them there. The Minister of Transport now has the opportunity with his friends in the Government to plan the transport to those areas, and to bring people to those parts of Scotland which they do not know, and therefore do not appreciate. The question of houses has to be dealt with, I know, but now we have an assurance


that the crofters are not to be assessed because they take in summer visitors, and the houses in the Highlands and Islands are being improved. With the assistance of Government and the local authorities people can now go to these places and be comfortably and well housed. But that housing question still remains for the Government to solve, and it is still a very important question in connection with the development of the Highlands and Islands for tourist traffic. The question of roads also is very important; we all know that the roads in the Highlands and Islands are a disgrace.
I hope in my speech to-night I have not been simply selling the Highlands and Islands of Scotland as a holiday area. I know there are other places with other attractions, but people are prevented from going to the Highlands and Islands because there is no adequate or proper transport system, and the Government are to a large extent blameworthy for that state of affairs. I hope that the Minister of Labour will consider that this is one of the solutions of the problem. I believe we can, to a large extent, develop these Highlands and Islands of Scotland as Switzerland has been developed, and as Norway has largely been developed, and is being developed, by a more energetic Government than our own. I have sometimes during the holiday season watched the traffic in the Highlands. On some of the railways in the North of Scotland, when at a certain time of the year the railway traffic becomes much heavier, the same staff, with hardly the addition of a man, is compelled to undertake twice as much work, and to work longer hours. I think that is a disgraceful thing, and I think the companies ought to be approached by the Government. It is not only a matter of the length of time the staff has to work, but the intensity of the work sometimes tires a man much more than the number of hours he works. These people are overwhelmed with work, and I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to their claims.

7.8 p.m.

Sir J. Walker-Smith: In this Debate the issue of a spread-over of holidays which is before the House has been somewhat confused with the question of holidays with pay. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) has

attempted gently to chide, if not to castigate, the proposer and seconder of the Amendment because they were not in the House at the time when he introduced his Bill for holidays with pay. I was in the House upon that occasion, and I certainly did not support his Bill because I thought it was a bad Bill in that it proposed to deal with the important question of holidays with pay in a thoroughly unsatisfactory manner. I am so keen upon this subject of holidays with pay that not only did I refrain from supporting his Bill, but I actively opposed it. It seemed to me then, and it seems to me now, that this important question may be looked at from alternative points of view. One can proceed by the evolutionary method, and deal with the matter by collective agreements, by negotiation between organised parties of employers and employed in a particular industry and thus prepare a scheme which would be satisfactory to those with full knowledge of all the circumstances of the industry and would be accepted as thoroughly workable. That is one way. The other way—that adopted by the hon. Member's Bill—was to resort to compulsion and to put upon a Government Department the duty of preparing a scheme for holidays with pay, applicable to the industries of the whole country. I, myself, was satisfied that the former alternative was right.
The matter we are discussing this evening is obviously one of such comparatively limited scope that nearly every aspect of it has already been dealt with. There is, however, a viewpoint which has not been developed, a viewpoint which I myself hold. I was not surprised to find general unanimity that something should be done by the Government Departments concerned. I suppose it is perfectly natural in such a legislative assembly as this that, no matter what the problem may be, Members should look to legislation, to regulations of some kind, to solve it. I do not share their desire for statutory or governmental intervention in any matter that can be settled otherwise, particularly matters concerning industry, and this is a matter that particularly concerns industry. I would desire the least possible amount of governmental intervention. When the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) said that he spoke for the representatives of all the seaside resorts I do not know whether he included


my constituency in that category. Certainly we are a seaside resort, but whether we come within the category of health resort I scarcely know.
But the hon. Member hardly represents my point of view. I can thorouoghly understand the desirability from the railway companies' point of view of a spread-over of the holiday season, and I can understand its desirability for those particular holiday resorts that rely very largely upon visitors. But this Amendment suggests that there should be intervention by the President of the Board of Education and the Minister of Labour. I am particularly anxious that the Board of Education should not be diverted in the least degree by questions such as this from their proper work of directing the education of youth, and I am anxious that the Minister of Labour should not permit matters industrial to be diverted from their normal course and progress by the efforts to bring about a spread-over of holidays. I was moved by the tender solicitude of the hon. Member for Blackpool for the pitiable plight of some of the people at these seaside holiday resorts. I am inclined to share his view and his sympathy. If it is those people with whom he is concerned I am in agreement and sympathy with him, but I fear he had other interests in mind. The Board of Education or any other Government Department to whom these matters may be referred should be thoroughly well satisfied that this House desires educational and industrial administration to proceed without too much regard to the interests, and particularly the pecuniary interests, of hotel-keepers, lodging-house keepers and proprietors of fun towers, and that sort of thing in various holiday resorts.
As regards the Board of Education, I do not think they need do any more than they have already done about this matter of providing for a spread-over of holidays. By Statute and by custom that question is left entirely to the administration of the local education authorities. It is within the scope of those authorities to adjust the holiday periods, within limits, to suit the needs of their localities and they know the needs of their localities better than any other body can, and they are the right people to do so. They have the power and the opportunity to adjust term times and holiday times in such a way as to suit the people of the localities, and to

them it should be left. The question in regard to the secondary schools is a little more difficult than it is in regard to the elementary schools. In the elementary schools a year can be divided into four educational terms, but there are difficulties in that respect in the case of secondary education. My point, however, is that facilities now exist for the local education authorities to adjust these matters as the circumstances of the locality require, and that we should not depart from the present system in that respect. I did not think that the Minister of Labour would succumb to the blandishments which were showered upon him from various quarters, and I find that he has not done so. He has certainly expressed sympathy with this proposal. He could not do otherwise. Naturally, he has expressed his willingness to consult with the Board of Education and with any Department which can assist him on this subject. But I am anxious that there shall not be any statutory intervention.

Mr. R. Robinson: Nobody has suggested statutory intervention, and it would be out of order to do so on this occasion. All we have asked for is co-operation between employers and workers and between industry and the education authorities, and the suggestion is that, with such co-operation, the matter should be dealt with by negotiation.

Sir J. Walker-Smith: I thoroughly understood the fact that there was no specific reference to legislation in the Amendment. But this is a legislative body, and if it is to do anything there must be some sort of sanction behind its action and the only sanction, ultimately, is either legislation, or a departmental instruction, or regulation. Otherwise, why bring up the matter here at all? It does not need a formal proposal of this kind to get the co-operation which the hon. Member has mentioned. But my main point is that a matter of this kind should be left, as far as it properly can be left, to the organised representatives of labour and of the employers. They can meet and can arrange the times and conditions of holidays in their industry, and when they have arranged those holidays it is for the holiday resorts themselves and the transport people to provide the necessary facilities. That is the right way to deal with the matter and I am anxious that


that method should be adopted in this case. It is far better to leave a question of this kind to the organised representatives of the workers and the employers. They can try this method and that method, and by a process of trial and error arrive at the most suitable arrangements. Then they can, with the greatest facility, adjust that arrangement from time to time to meet altered circumstances. But once you get into the realm of statutes and departmental regulations, you get a system which is inflexible and rigid and difficult to adapt to the varying conditions of modern times. I hope, therefore, that nothing will be done to prevent this question from being dealt with, as it should be, by the representatives of the employers and the employed themselves.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: As one who does not represent a constituency containing a health resort I wish to speak on behalf of those who are seeking to be staggered as regards their holidays. I have been particularly interested in this Debate because every speaker has seemed to anticipate that, within a short time, holidays with pay will become an accomplished fact. I sincerely hope so, and I am encouraged by the speeches I have heard to believe that there will be no lack of support from hon. Members opposite, in the near future, when an opportunity presents itself of making holidays with pay an accomplished fact. That is, apparently, what we all desire now. But I cannot understand the speech of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Sir J. Walker-Smith). He suggests that although this reform is desirable, he does not want the force of legislation behind it. If he were in the position of a trade union secretary, seeking to convince employers of the desirability of these reforms, and if he found that the employers had just as much sympathy as he has expressed today, but yet were unable to meet the views of the trade unions, he would whole-heartedly welcome legislation to deal with these matters.

Sir J. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member suggests that I am not connected with the work of trade unions, but that is what I am doing every day of my life.

Mr. Tomlinson: I did not refer to the hon. Member as a director of a trade union. I said he should try to imagine himself as a trade union secretary seeking to obtain some concession in the interests of the workers. It seems to me that all that has been said to-day regarding the necessity and value of holidays with pay has been apparent for the past 50 years. The need for the workers' holiday has always been there.

Major Procter: But has only been recognized since the advent of the National Government.

Mr. Tomlinson: If the hon. Member had been present during the Debate he would realise that his interruption has nothing to do with the point I am making. What I am suggesting is that this question of the necessity for holidays for workers has become a vital issue, and I wish to take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate the tribute paid by the Minister of Labour to the gentleman whom I followed in the Parliamentary representation of Farnworth for bringing this question before the House on previous occasions. In my part of the country I can assure hon. Members that holidays with pay became a very practical issue after the Bill had been introduced. Somebody said that in Lancashire the staggering of holidays had been tried as an experiment. It is not an experiment. It has been a custom for 35 years; it is well past the experimental stage, and nobody would dream of going back to the old method. It seems to me that it is the South which has been behindhand all the time in this respect.
As regards the question of staggering these holiday periods so as to obviate holidays in August, I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) suggest that if that were done the minds of the landladies of Blackpool would be easier, and that those who visited Blackpool in July would find that the prices were not quite as high as they had been accustomed to in the past. I suggest to him in all seriousness that all the conditions to which he referred have not applied merely to August, and I am doubtful whether the staggering of holidays will provide us with all the benefits to which we feel we are entitled. But I am hopeful after the hon. Member's speech this afternoon. I appreciated his


reference to the seasonal workers, and I believe that the Minister of Labour can do something to help in that respect. If there is a spread-over, the period of the season can be extended, and I do not see why it should be extended only from April to September. Why can it not be extended from January to December, so that the seasonal workers will be qualified for benefit all the year round? The Minister of Labour can, at any rate, do that and it would, I believe, help in the solution of one part of the problem. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Blackpool would suggest that the illumination period in Blackpool should be extended, along with the extension of the season, but if the illumination period were extended to cover the whole year, it might help.
I was interested to hear the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) describing the condition in which many workers return from their holidays on account of the difficulties experienced under the present system. As one who has often gone on holidays under present circumtances, I realise that our condition was bad but I did not realise that it was as bad as the Noble Lady suggested, and she apparently claims to know the facts. But one thing I would say. She does not know the working-class mother. If she suggests that the working-class mother would be prepared to go for a holiday without her children, she simply does not know what she is talking about. In view of the shortness of the time available, I do not propose to detain the House further.

Mr. R. Robinson: The House has achieved a very full measure of agreement on this question. We have had from the Minister of Labour an expression of his sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment and a promise of close co-operation. I wish to accept that assurance, and to thank the House for their almost unanimous support of this proposal. I, therefore do not desire to press an Amendment which would involve your continuance in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and prevent the Government from getting their Supply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1938.

CLASS VII.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That a sum, not exceeding £2,78,650, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of labour and health buildings, Great Britain."— [Note: £140,000 has been voted on account.]

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Viant: There are some extraordinary items included in this Vote, on which I feel sure the Committee would desire an explanation from the First Commissioner of Works——

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — CALEDONIAN POWER BILL. (By Order.)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second: time."

7.30 p.m.

Sir Murdoch MacDonald: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
For the third time now I have the privilege of either moving or seconding the rejection of this Measure. I do so on this occasion because of two main objections of principle which I have to it as it stands. Some of these objectionable features have appeared in the previous Bills. Indeed, on the last two occasions on which the Bill was before the House it was almost identical, certainly on the engineering side, with what is now before us. A very objectionable feature, which has been repeated in the last two Bills and in this Bill, appeared in 1928. On


that occasion a Bill was brought forward to utilise the Loch Quoich area, to drive a tunnel through the hills on the West Coast of Scotland, drop the waters down to the sea on the other side, and at that point extract the power from them. That particular method of dealing with the Loch Quoich waters was very strenuously objected to, so strenuously that I think it was the main reason for that Bill being lost. In 1936 a similar Bill, containing this objectionable feature, was brought before the House and once again rejected. In 1937, last year, exactly the same thing occurred, and this year again practically the same Bill as the previous two Bills comes before the House with this same objectionable feature still contained in it. Therefore, this is really the fourth time that this objectionable feature has appeared before this House. I feel certain that it was the cause of the loss of the Bill on the first occasion, and I feel equally certain that, although there was another point in the 1936 Bill, namely, the taxation problem, which loomed very much before the House, this objectionable feature of diverting the waters to the West Coast was one of the main reasons for the rejection of the Bill.
Last year I drew attention as strongly as I could to this objectionable feature, and I do so again this year. I say that the promoters of the Bill have had ample opportunity to judge whether it is reasonable of them to come before this House year after year and ask it to pass a Bill containing a feature which, to my mind and to the minds of those whom I represent, is certainly most objectionable. As they have not altered their opinion, but have once again attempted to get this Bill passed through this House, I stand here to-night to object to its Second Reading, and I hope the House will agree with me on that point. The constant bringing forward of a Bill of this kind is a matter that ought seriously to be considered by Members of this House, if I may respectfully say so, because, after all, a great deal of expense has to be incurred by those who oppose the Bill. Year after year they are put to the expense of appearing before this House or attempting to influence this House in the direction of having their Views properly stated and fairly considered, and if the Bill goes to the Committee stage, that expense, of course, is

still further accentuated. I therefore think the fact of a Bill of this kind coming year by year before the House is a matter which ought to give Members a good deal of thought, as to whether the Standing Order, permitting such constant repetition year by year, is as fair on Members and on the outside public who have to oppose the Bill as it would appear to be.
I have looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the two previous occasions when I have stood here to object to this Bill, and I have read carefully everything that I said on those occasions, and I see now no reason to withdraw one word of what I then said. I think I gave reasonable and cogent arguments why the House should reject the Measure. I do not desire to trespass by constant repetition of the same arguments year after year, and I will therefore devote myself to only two specific matters of principle in which I think this Bill fails and, as a consequence, ought to be rejected. There are many other matters with which, I have no doubt, other hon. Members will deal, and I shall leave all other subjects to them to put before the House as they think fit.
The first point that I desire to deal with as a matter of principle is yet, from the promoters' point of view, not one of any importance whatever. It is one to which I drew the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and it is this: Whatever happens, whatever kind of scheme is adopted, there is no doubt whatever in anybody's mind that somehow or other the River Ness, flowing through the town of Inverness, will be affected. Indeed, everybody agrees, although, it may be, not to the extent of saying individually what is the amount of affectation of the river—I have my own views in regard to that—that it will be affected. It is therefore clear that the town of Inverness has a vital interest in this Bill, in that its river, undoubtedly, will be detrimentally affected. You cannot subtract, taking the whole year round, 15 or 16 per cent. of the water and say, "Oh, the river is just as it was." Inverness is entitled to say," Well, you touch our river; we do not want you to touch it, and we have cogent reasons, we think, why you should not touch it, but you are going to do some injury to us." If that be accepted, then, when


this company terminates its use of these waters—that is, when the lease, if granted undr the Bill, expires—is it not only right and reasonable that the property in the water that is taken away from the town of Inverness should once again revert to it? Under the Bill it reverts to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade can, at the end of a period of 75 years, take over these water powers, in so far as the works are concerned. If they take them over, that, as a practical matter, means that the property in them passes into the hands, as far as the monetary consideration is concerned, of the Treasury.
The Bill asks that a private company, for its private gain, should be allowed to inflict an injury on the town of Inverness and its inhabitants. It may be, though I hope not, that in the judgment of Parliament that injury will be inflicted. If it is inflicted for the nexet 75 years, is it not only right and reasonable that at the end of that period, when the company's term is finished, the property in these water powers should once again return to those who originally owned it, that is, to the town and inhabitants of Inverness?

Mr. Maxton: To the local landlords.

Sir M. MacDonald: To the town of Inverness, through its town council, once again to hold that which has been taken away from it for the purpose of giving it to some private persons for their private gain.

Mr. Macquisten: All the inhabitants will be dead then.

Sir M. MacDonald: I hope our grandchildren will be alive.

Mr. Macquisten: They will not live in Inverness.

Sir M. MacDonald: We do not legislate merely for our own lifetime. We hope that Acts of Parliament will last longer than our own time, and nothing should be done to-day in this House which will inflict an injury on anybody to-morrow. Chat is the real point of this matter. As I have said, I put this matter before the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and he told me, just as did the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), that we shall all be dead before this term is up. That may be quite right, but our successors will be

affected. As I understand it, there is no legal bar to this being done, and as it seems to me to be plain justice, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see that it will be done. That is my first point.
There are three classes of companies using hydro-electric power. There are the Galloway and the Grampian schemes. They use rivers, streams, dams, and all the other paraphernalia of hydro-electric power production. They are financially controlled and the Electricity Commissioners have full command over them. They cannot make exorbitant profits for themselves. The Electricity Commissioners can interfere with the rates of charges. I myself have appealed to them to interfere with the rates that some of these companies have been endeavouring to charge, and as a consequence have been able to obtain reduced rates for my constituents. Every three years the Commissioners can reduce the rates so as to prevent these companies making undue profits. If the Government thought fit to give power to companies of that kind to control water it would be quite right to do so because the Government, through the Electricity Commissioners, would have full control over them to see that the public got a share of the profits they made. There is another set of hydroelectric power schemes which is illustrated by the Lochaber power scheme. They own the rights or have bought the rights of their water practically from the source to the sea. Their works are on their own private property. It is true that they are private companies and their profits are uncontrolled, but they do not interfere with public rights in any way.

Sir Edmund Findlay: The Lochaber Power Company are promoting a Bill to take a lot of water from the Spey.

Sir M. MacDonald: When that Bill comes up we shall have a lot to say about it. At present they are uncontrolled, they work their own factories on their own land, and they do not interfere with public rights of any kind. There is the third class of company, like the Caledonian Power Company, which now comes before the House. Like the Lochaber Power Company they are uncontrolled in regard to their profits. It is true that a little electricity will be sold to the surrounding inhabitants and that in respect of that small quantity there will be control by the Electricity Commissioners. The bulk of the power, probably 95 per


cent., will be sold to the company's own factories, and, in consequence, will be uncontrolled as far as this House and the general public are concerned. They will make their own profits from the water power, sell the electricity to their own factories, and be uncontrolled. Unlike the Lochaber Power Company, they will interfere with public rights. They will interfere with the public right of the town of Inverness and its river. The town is not willing to sell its rights even if it could do so.
This is the first time that a private company for its own profit is to be allowed to interfere with a public right. I hope that on that ground alone the Bill will be rejected. There is, however, the vital matter, to which I originally referred, of the flow of the water to the west coast. In that regard the company are doing a wholly gratuitous damage to Inverness and its inhabitants. If the company said that they could not get the quantity of power they wanted by turning the water in the right direction, something might be said for the scheme. Under their Bill they have determined the quantity of power they intend to procure, and I say that they can secure the same amount of power by a proper use of the water and by turning it all to the east instead of turning a large proportion to the west.

Mr. Boothby: Does the hon. Member say all or an equivalent amount of power?

Sir M. MacDonald: I took the precaution of asking two of my colleagues, who are very competent and have great experience in works of this nature, to consider whether the same amount of power could be obtained by turning the water the other way. They have made all the necessary calculations, I have examined them, and I am satisfied that it could be obtained. I said that the calculations must be checked by someone outside, and I suggested an eminent Swiss engineer, a friend of mine, but my colleagues suggested that I should try somebody in London. I found that I had a friend who would oblige me by examining what I proposed. He is a member of the Water Power Resources Committee and is chairman of one of its principal sub-committees. I refer to Dr. Crowley, a well known authority on hydro-electric matters. He writes to me:

I would confirm that I have examined with you the water power development of Loch Quoich and Loch Garry, as proposed to the Caledonian Power Bill, which proposes to divert Loch Quoich from its natural catchment. I am impressed with your proposal to develop the power of Loch Quoich in its natural catchment and am satisfied that substantially the same power can be got by this development as could be obtained by the development outlined in the Caledonian Power Bill.
I was not even satisfied with that. Dr. Crowley is my personal friend and did this to oblige me. I knew that Inverness had engaged the services of an eminent consulting engineering firm in London to advise them—Binnie, Deacon and Gourley —and I asked Mr. Gourley what he thought of my scheme. He wrote:
As a result of ray investigation of an alternative layout to that of the promoters, I am of opinion that substantially the same amount of power could be generated by the Quoich-Garry catchment when all the water flows east as could be obtained by the promoters' scheme in which the waters of the Quoich area are diverted to the west.
I think, therefore, I am justified in saying that an unnecessary injury is being done to my constituents by this diversion of water. Unfortunately, an alternative suggestion of this sort cannot be settled in Committee. If the Bill passes Second Reading it will go to the Committee, but if the Committee finds that this alternative proposal is the better of the two, it can only reject the Bill.

Mr. Cove: How much more would the alternative proposal cost?

Sir M. MacDonald: I went into that and I advised the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence that I thought it would cost £100,000 more.

Mr. Cove: Do I understand, therefore, that the hon. Member would support the Caledonian Power Bill if £100,000 more were spent on the scheme?

Sir M. MacDonald: I am afraid that the hon. Member has not read what I said on the previous occasions. I said that I had no objection to the development of Highland water power, and I have none now. The day of the development of Highland water power is bound to come, but when it does come let us have it in such a way that the maximum of injury will not be done by private people for private gain. There is no question now that the power can be got by turning to


the east, and whatever the extra expense may be—and it is not for me at this moment to say whether my figures are right or not—the alternative scheme should be carried out. The point is that power can be got in the other direction of the same amount as the company are getting in the direction they are going while doing the maximum amount of damage. Last year I described the Bill as outrageous. I still think that it would be a dreadful thing if this House should allow public interest to suffer in order that private people for their uncontrolled private gain should be allowed to get this Bill through and therefore I beg to move that the House rejects this Bill.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I beg to second the Amendment.
Because of the name of the chairman of the promoters this Bill has been jocularly referred to as a Hardie annual, but when the House of Commons year after year gives its decision on a private Bill submitted by a strong wealthy industrial company and when that decision is continually neglected and the viewpoints of hon. Members of this House are taken no notice of, and the Bill is submitted year after year, then in accordance with the dignity of this House it has gone beyond a joke. As a native of Inverness I have been very concerned with this scheme. Let me assure hon. Members on all sides of the House that if I honestly and sincerely believed that this scheme would bring some benefit to the people of the Highlands of Scotland there would be no doubt as to which way I would vote to-night. I have listened with great attention to the arguments from both sides, and it is very interesting and right that hon. Members should recognise who exactly are supporting and objecting to this Bill. Since my entry into the House of Commons I have continually maintained, sometimes against the wishes of my own heart, that a Government must control the country and its people for the benefit of the great majority of the community. Therefore, this Bill must be examined by all who believe in our institutions from the point of view of what effect it will have on the great majority of the community who come under the scope of the Bill.
For the Bill we have the promoters, to whom I will make no personal reference save to say that they represent a great, strong and wealthy financial organisation. We have a section of a county council whose chief office-bearers receive compensatory benefits if this scheme is passed, a section of a county council who represent a rateable value of £21,400, a few miscellaneous individual landlords who have never been known in the history of the Highlands for their support of schemes for assisting the ordinary workers of the Highlands. Then we have—and I give due credit to them—those members of the Fort William Labour party—undoubtedly a small section of the Labour movement in that area—who believe that this will bring some benefit to their particular area. But against this Bill, from the point of view of community government control, we have the Inverness Town Council elected by the votes of the people; we have Baillie Hugh Fraser, the Labour representative on that council; we have the Inverness Labour party with an individual membership of. 300 wholly and completely opposed to this scheme—all representing a rateable value in the county of over £205,000. We have also against this scheme almost every society in Scotland which desires the preservation of the beauties of the Highlands; and last but not least we have the Scots Self-Government League, the executive of the Scots Self-Government League who are to a man and a woman Socialists desiring the betterment and improvement of the Highlands. Therefore, after considering the supporters and the opponents of this Bill, I want to say to my colleagues particularly that in the attitude I take to-night my conscience is clear.
The Inverness Town Council, the main objectors, with these other associations supporting them, represent a population of 22,500 people. The Fort William objectors represent 2,500 people. While I agree that minorities must always have their rights, it is a fundamental principle that in any legislation that emanates from this House it must be legislation which takes into consideration the majority opinion of the people involved, and when that majority is shown clearly as an overwhelming majority of objectors it must be clear to Members that there is no widespread feeling or anxiety in the Highlands, no desire among the great mass of the Highlanders, for this Bill. I


say from a close knowledge of them that Highland people desire development in the Highlands on the natural lines of the Highlands.
I am convinced that from a national point of view this industry is an industry that is best suited to a distressed mining area. We have had experts giving us figures and percentages. I have examined the evidence very closely and I am convinced—and I object to this Bill—because I think that the industry is being placed in the wrong area, that it is going to destroy local industries in that area, and that it would be much better from the national point of view that this industry should be placed in a distressed mining area close to the necessary raw materials, avoiding unnecessary overhead costs and giving to the nation this necessary commodity at the cheapest possible price.
In order to strengthen my arguments on behalf of the distressed areas I want to place before hon. Members some of the evidence that goes to prove this conclusively—evidence from eminent experts who are not employed by the company; and I think that my hon. Friends on this side, particularly from their experience in the past, cannot have very great faith in company lawyers or company engineers who are employed and paid by a company for their opinion. Therefore, it is right that we should go further. I say the same with regard to the engineers employed by the objectors. I go further afield and leave the two contending parties to their conflicting views, and I have here the viewpoint of one of the most eminent electrical engineers in this country, Sir Alexander Gibb, who was the principal partner in the contracting firm of Easton Gibb and Son, which constructed the naval base at Rosyth. He acted as chief civil engineer to the Admiralty and the Ministry of Transport and is now principal partner in the firm of Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, engineers for the Galloway hydro-electrical undertaking. He states very definitely that a large steam station could be built to produce electricity on the basis of 100 per cent. load factor at 185 pence per unit at the switchboard, as against the estimated cost of the promoters of this Bill of 240 pence.
I have also the statement of Mr. Frank Castor, one of the most eminent engineers

in New York, who states that in America large numbers of hydro-electrical developments have been carried out, but that more than two-thirds of them were commercially disappointing and they were failing to hold their own in comparison with the power costs of modern steam electrical plant. I have many other authorities who can prove definitely that at least—and I go no further—no scheme of water power should be passed by this House haphazardly—a scheme that will prevent the changing in Committee of that scheme to steam power—until the House is fully informed of the figures and opinions of such eminent experts. I call in support of my plea that this industry should be set up in a distressed mining area, the Prime Minister himself, who stated at Dundee on 29th November that from every point of view, from the point of view of our free civilisation, he regarded the introduction of new industries in the Special Areas as being the most important and the best work to which a British citizen could devote his capital and his brains for the benefit of his fellows.
I have one other point to make, with regard to the question of steam power versus water power. To-day the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. O. Evans) asked the President of the Board of Trade:
What was the quantity of calcium carbide produced in Germany during the last calendar year or some other period for which information is available, giving the quantity produced with the use of electricity generated by water-power and electricity generated by other means, respectively?
I commend the answer to hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House. I ask them not to be obstinate-minded on this question, but to give it their open and sincere examination. The reply of the President of the Board of Trade was:
The desired information is not available from official German sources, but I understand that the production of calcium carbide in Germany during 1937 amounted to about 140,000 tons, of which roughly one-quarter was produced with the use of electricity generated by water power.
The water power of Norway, Russia and other countries has been placed against the water power of this country, as an argument for the use of water power. There is no comparison between the water power of those countries and of this country. There is no comparison between the fall of the water in those


countries and in this country. There is no comparison between the amount of electrical installation which will be necessary in this country and in Norway and the other countries. The overhead costs in this country will be tremendous as compared with the costs in those other countries. Therefore, on that argument, we must examine the question of whether the water power in the Highlands of Scotland should be utilised for this important and necessary production—nationally necessary production, as the Secretary for Scotland stated in a previous Debate—or whether it should be placed in an area where it will provide more employment and provide the commodity more cheaply to the Government.
I say quite frankly, as a Socialist—and I hope that democrats on all sides of the House; those who believe in supporting the Government against all methods of dictatorship, will agree—that I would never be in favour of handing over, in order to provide work in a large area for 300 men, monopoly powers to a large company for nationally-necessary production, and allowing that company to hold a pistol at the head of the Government with regard to price. Hon Members on all sides know, and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence knows, perfectly well that we have had great difficulty, and that we shall have great difficulty, in controlling the selfish desire for profits at the expense of the nation's need for armaments.
The Highlands of Scotland have now great room for development. Every Highland economic committee that has been set up has urged, and is still asking for, greater faciilties for agricultural development in the Highlands of Scotland. Many small industries can be set up adjoining the towns in the Highlands, and those industries can receive to-day the electrical power that is going to waste in the Highlands of Scotland because it is not being used. With those possibilities of development there, I ask hon. Members to assist them, instead of setting up an industry that undoubtedly will occupy 300 miles of the Highlands of Scotland, with over 12 miles of tunnel, the damming of lochs, the diverting of waters from their natural sources—creating dried-up streams and having roads in the winter time submerged, and then, with the fall of the water in the

summer time, those roads bared to the gaze of the tourist traffic, with the muck and filth that must accrue from their submergence. I ask hon. Members, before giving power to any private company, to consider well what other methods could be used to assist the Highlanders, with regard to agriculture, small industries and tourist traffic.
We have heard that this Bill is being proposed to support an area which is being depopulated. It may interest hon. Members to know that in the chief areas affected by this scheme, instead of their being depopulated, the population has increased during the last two years, and in Inverness itself we have a 7.5 per cent. increase of the population. Therefore, this plea that this destitute, depopulated area must have those ugly works set up in it, in order to bring great and everlasting benefit to the Highlands, falls to the ground when a true examination of the facts is made by open-minded Members. The tourist traffic of the North of Scotland has increased during the past three years, and I do not think it is the desire of any hon. Member—and, I will say, even of those who in the House support the scheme; not the promoters—that the beauties of the Highlands of Scotland should be completely obliterated, or even that scars should be put on them.
The beauties of the Highlands, speaking not from a sentimental point of view but from a business point of view, are an asset to the Highlands. The beauties of Scotland have attracted during the past three years a 600 per cent. increase of tourist traffic. With those small industries growing, and with our desire, as I believe we have the desire, to improve the lot of those people in the Highlands, let us assist them in this natural development, instead of setting up ugly buildings, dams and deposits, that will turn the tourist traffic away and kill local industries. I honestly and sincerely believe that the effect of the Bill will be to stop the natural development of the Highlands.
There are two sides of the Bill, the power side and the industrial side. On the power side, 300 miles of area will be occupied, four important lochs will be dammed, the floor of those lochs will be diverted and 37 other lochs and rivers in the Highlands will be affected. The promoters do not deny that important roadways will be submerged in the winter and


that in the summer the fall of water will affect those roads and leave ugly landmarks. A Clause in the Bill which I recommend for examination provides that the promoters of the Bill shall have power to sell, to leave or to do what they will with those deposits. There is no guarantee in the Bill that the promoters will do their utmost, or will spend money, to maintain the amenities of the Highlands. When did it become the policy of this House, despite our sincere desire for work for our people, to say to any private company: "Work at any price"? I do not believe that the price which the Highlands of Scotland are being asked to pay for the setting up of this industry is one that they ought to be asked to pay.
Who is it that asks for special rating facilities? Who is it that asks this House to allow them not only 75 per cent. de-rating but an extra 50 per cent. that we do not grant to shopkeepers, householders or many other industries in the country? It is a firm that in 1896 was small but to-day represents £3,000,000 in capital, and in the last nine years has paid £1,900,000 in profits. This wealthy industrial firm asks the House of Commons to give it those special rating facilities which will undoubtedly impose upon local ratepayers a burden which they ought not to be asked to share. This wealthy firm, which has shown such tremendous profits, asks for a monopoly over the water power of the Highlands and for power to destroy hundreds of miles of scenery, for the employment of only 300 men. I would recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) stated last year that the £1 shares of this firm are now worth £6, and I maintain that the firm desires a monopoly of the water power of Scotland.
Representatives of the Inverness Town Council pointed out to me clearly the effect that this proposal would have upon the town. I have heard many stories about the sewerage system as it exists, but I have in my possession a letter from the medical officer of Inverness and from the public assistance convener, stating that many of the stories which hon. Members must have heard in reference to Inverness diseases are entirely untrue. That council depends upon spates and floods for the cleansing of the river for the health of the city, and without those

spates and floods the city's health would be seriously affected and difficulties would be created for an elected local authority. We are proposing to stop their electrical development and we are affecting adversely 22,500 people because a profit-making concern desires a monopoly in the North of Scotland. I ask every open-minded Member of this House to see to it that the promoters of the Bill receive their last lesson from the House of Commons and that they are told in no uncertain manner that they cannot go forward against the decision and opinions of hon. Members year after year and expect the wealth of their industrial undertakings to subdue our opinions and our clear-sighted judgment in this matter.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I hope that the House will give a Second Reading to the Bill. The hon. Member has dealt with it—I am sure he will not mind my saying so—very largely from the party point of view——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Davidson: I do not object to the hon. Member saying so.

Mr. Boothby: He quoted at great length the opinions of the Socialist members of the burgh councils, and he pleaded with this House not to grant any kind of monopoly right to any form of private enterprise. He was appealing primarily to Members of his own party. I want to take up two questions which he raised. The first was when he said that there was ample scope in the Highlands for the development of small industries and agriculture. He might have treated the House a little more seriously on those two points and told us what small industries. I would ask him that question, because I am very interested in it, as Member for a constituency in the North of Scotland. This is the first time I have heard about a great new scheme for the development of small industries. I should like to hear more about it in the interests of Peterhead and Fraserburg and various other towns in my constituency that I know very well. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was very careful not to name a single small industry.
Secondly, he implied that there was scope in the West Highlands for the development of agriculture on a sub-


stantial scale. I suggest to this House that that is nothing short of an insult to the people who live in the West Highlands. The hon. Member knows that in these days of mass production the idea that you can develop agriculture on a large scale in the sort of area covered by the proposals of the Bill and by this scheme is not only Utopian but illusory. You cannot possibly expect to develop agriculture in this sort of area, or small industries either.
On the question of cost the hon. Member reiterated that it would be cheaper to produce carbide in a distressed area where there were coal and anthracite than to produce it by hydro-electric power, but he knows as well as this House knows that that is not the case. If it were the case, why should the British Oxygen Company come to this House for three years in succession trying to get powers under the Bill? I do not claim that they are in business from an altruistic point of view, but they want to produce their car-hide as cheaply as they can. They have carried out exhaustive tests, and they are in as good a position as any hon. Member to judge the matter, and they have come to the conclusion that it is cheaper to produce calcium carbide by hydroelectric power than by means of coal. If they had not come to that conclusion, this Bill would never have been before the House. Therefore, it is idle for the hon. Member or anyone else to suggest that it is cheaper to produce calcium carbide by steam power than by hydro-electric power.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that last year the promoters stated definitely that the production of calcium carbide by steam power in any coal area was uneconomic; and is he aware that they have stated this year that it is economic?

Mr. Boothby: That again is a mistake, with which I shall deal in a moment. By itself it is uneconomic, but, if you take the question of distribution and the averaging of costs—[HON. MEMBERS: It is a question of marketing."]—of course it is a question of marketing—it is possible to work these two schemes together. I will deal with that point in a moment. The hon. Member tried to convey to the House that by itself it is cheaper to produce calcium carbide by

steam power derived from coal than it is by water power. He knows as well as every other hon. Member that, whatever may be the merits or demerits of this Bill, that at least is not true.
The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill made, I thought, a very unfair speech. He said it was a great shame that, if and when this scheme ever came to an end, it should not be returned to the proprietors, but that the rights in it should be returned to the Government. I am not sure whether that will greatly appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it certainly does not appeal to me. When its work comes to an end, if it ever does come to an end, the rights should be vested in the Board of Trade, or, in other words, in the Government. That is the place where they ought to be.

Sir M. MacDonald: Is my hon. Friend aware that other hydro-electric schemes are returnable to particular electric undertakings in the area? Why, therefore, should not this particular one return to the county and town of Inverness?

Mr. Boothby: I did not interrupt either of the other two speeches, and I know from bitter experience that, if we go on bobbing up and down, we shall be here much longer. It is very easy to debate all these points; they are controversial points. I have to make this case as quickly as I can, and I do not want to give way again. I would only say that that does not apply to the Grampian scheme, or to many other schemes. If my hon. Friend is merely making the point that it would be better to return the rights to private existing owners of those rights than to the Government many years hence, if and when the scheme comes to a conclusoin, I do not agree with him. So far as the Lochaber scheme is concerned, it interferes, of course, in many respects with the rights of various counties at the present time. What I really object to in the speech of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) is that he so unfairly stated that this Bill was being brought to the House by a powerful private company over and over again, as it were in the teeth of the opinion of the House. That is a travesty, and a most unfair travesty, of the facts. It is quite typical of the continuous misrepresentation that has gone on with regard to this Bill for months past, and, indeed, for years past.
Let me recount to the House the real facts of the situation. Hon. Members will recollect that a similar Bill to this was introduced and rejected last year. It was rejected by 180 votes to 140, and I may mention in passing that 47 of the Scottish Members were in favour of the Bill on that occasion, and only 11 were opposed to it. Why was it rejected? I would remind hon. Members that the reason why the Bill was rejected on the last occasion was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
There is this enormously important industry which we all agree that it is desirable at least to establish in this country. The question of the location of the industry still remains. The Government cannot divest itself of the responsibility of determining the question whether, and if so where, this industry should be carried on in this country, nor does the Government wish to do so. If, therefore, this Bill fails to obtain a Second Reading to-night, the Government itself will forthwith take up the question how best this country should be provided with a supply of carbide, and where this supply of carbide should be produced. It might well be that in such circumstances a Highland site might be chosen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 2937; cols. 1277–8, Vol. 321.]
The Government, therefore, accepted this responsibility, and, in order to prove to hon. Members that that was the opinion of the House, and that the Government accepted it, I would like to quote from the concluding observations of the speech made on the same occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis). He said:

I accept the alternative which the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that it is the duty of the Government to face the situation and to examine the whole question. I am obliged to him for the clear way in which he has put the matter, and I suggest to the House that if we want a thorough and complete examination, apart from considerations of interest on both sides, it is the duty of the House to reject this Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1937; col. 1290, Vol. 321.]
I was in the House on that occasion, and took a great interest in the matter, and I think that the speech of my hon. Friend had great influence. That was the impression that the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland made on that occasion, and, having in mind the fact that the Government accepted the responsibility for making an impartial examination into this question, the House rejected

the Bill and the Government took it over. A sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence was set up to examine this question. It examined witnesses, it took evidence, it publicly advertised that expressions of opinion and views could be made to it from all quarters, including my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness; and the whole scheme submitted by the promoters of the Bill, that is to say, the scheme for the establishment of a factory at Corpach and one at Port Talbot, was accepted by that sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence—the Government's own Committee. That is the history of this Bill, and I am sure that any unbiased and unprejudiced Member of the House will agree with me that to say in these circumstances that the promoters of the Bill, in bringing it once more before the House on the recommendation of the Committee of Imperial Defence, are trying to challenge the opinion of this House, and using their power and finance and influence to challenge the opinion of this House, is not a fair statement of the case. They have brought this Bill before the House tonight because it embodies a scheme that has been accepted in its entirety by a committee set up by the Government. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) shakes his head, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland says, "Hear, hear." I imagine that my right hon. Friend knows more what the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence recommended than does the hon. and learned Member.
Having made that preliminary statement with regard to the history of the Bill, and having, I think, exculpated the promoters of the Bill from any charge of trying to put themselves in any way in opposition to the opinion of the House, I come to the aim of the Bill, and, as I recapitulated it at some length last year, it will not be necessary for me to detain the House for very long about it now. Calcium carbide, as hon. Members know, is essential for the production of acetylene gas, which, combined with oxygen, can cut through the thickest steel plates, and is essential for modern welding on a large scale. It is vital for aeroplane production. I do not think any hon. Member will deny that 400,000 tons of carbide are produced every year in Germany, and


350,000 tons in Italy. We use at present between 50,000 and 60,000 tons of carbide per annum in this country, but in the event of war we should—and here I quote authoritatively from the Secretary of State for Scotland—require at least double that amount, that is to say, about 120,000 tons a year, if our efforts are not to be greatly crippled. That is the information of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The immediate objective of this Bill is, therefore, to produce carbide in this country. We import at the present time practically all the carbide that we use. Perhaps I might just refresh the memories of hon. Members as to the report made by the Nitrogen Products Committee as long ago as 1921. In paragraph 656 of their report they said:
''that as a minimum provision for safeguarding the future the calcium cyanamide process should be established in Great Britain without delay, either by private enterpise, supported if necessary by the Government, or as a public work. The Committee considered that the necessary electric energy should be obtained either from water power in Scotland or from a large steam power station.
They added that they had ascertained from the Water Power Resources Committee of the Board of Trade that there were several sites in Scotland where the necessary power could be developed at a reasonable cost. The Committee added in paragraph 288, which is really worth reading, because 1921 is a long time ago:
We consider that the utilisation of the water powers of the United Kingdom would tend to relieve the increasing congestion of our large centres of population, and in the case of the Highlands of Scotland would assist materially in improving the present low standard of comfort of the inhabitants of that area, thus arresting the abnormal emigration from it.
What is the ultimate objective? It is nothing less than the establishment of electro-chemical industries in the Highlands of Scotland, worked by hydroelectric plant. At the present time the annual importation into this country of the products of these electro-chemical industries is valued at not less than £2,000,000 sterling, and all I say is that in default of any constructive alternative it does not do to talk of small industries and agriculture. This scheme offers the best hope of bringing some life, some revival, to the West Highlands of Scotland of any constructive scheme yet produced.
I come now to the point made by the hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill. One of the most important factors in the manufacture of carbide is the cost of the electric power, because 4,000 units are consumed for one ton of carbide produced. Thus a difference of 100th part of a penny per unit of electricity consumed means a difference of 3s. a ton in the cost of the carbide produced. Cheap power is, therefore, essential. The estimated cost of power is considerably higher in South Wales than at Corpach.

Mr. S. O. Davies: In what part of South Wales?

Mr. Boothby: In any part of South Wales. Power produced by hydro-electrical means is definitely cheaper than power produced by coal, but by averaging the cost between the two schemes, that at Corpach and that at Port Talbot, and taking into account the question of distribution by sea from Corpach and overland from Port Talbot, the promoters believe they can supply the whole of this country with all the carbide that is required in competition with foreign producers. Work has begun at Port Talbot in Wales, but both parts of the scheme are essential to its success. One of the reasons why work has begun is that the promoters felt that it would be undesirable to hold the Port Talbot scheme over the House as a bribe to get it to pass the present Bill. Statutory power was not required for the Port Talbot scheme, but is necessary for this scheme. Hon. Members will make a great mistake it they think the two parts of the scheme are not interdependent, because they are; both parts are essential to the success of the scheme as a whole.
Now I come to the counter-proposal made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald). I cannot take his counter-proposal seriously for a moment. It has been carefully examined by very competent engineers, and as a result I, for one, am convinced that it is a frivolous, facetious proposal.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) could not make a joke if he tried.

Mr. Boothby: He tried hard, but it is a very bad joke. If the hon. Member's scheme were put into operation what would be the effect? First, he proposes to raise the level of Loch Garry. I would


point out that the hon. Member is not opposing this scheme on a point of principle, because he has frequently said that if he could divert the waters where he wants them, that is down the east side of Scotland instead of the west, he would be in favour of this hydro-electric power scheme. His scheme would involve raising the level of Loch Garry, at enormous expense, 70 feet higher than the top level proposed in the Bill. The raising of the dam to this height would flood 1,900 acres instead of the 400 acres which will be flooded under the present proposal.

Mr. Crossley: Four thousand acres.

Mr. Boothby: No, 400 acres. The interruption of the hon. Member shows one of the great difficulties of any hon. Members who are not well acquainted with the scheme arguing about it. They do not get within thousands in the matter of accuracy. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) thinks that 4,000 acres are going to be flooded. It is 400 acres, but the scheme of the hon. Member for Inverness would flood 1,900 acres. I deny that the proposals in this Bill will involve a permanent flooding of 4,000 acres.

Mr. Crossley: I have the figures here: Loch Quoich 1,290 acres, Loch Garry 580, Loch Loyne 1,000, Loch Cluanie 1,170, and the River Moriston 260.

Mr. Boothby: We are talking at complete cross-purposes. The hon. Member is talking of the surface level of all these lakes and I am talking of the difference involved by the raising of this dam under the proposal of the hon. Member for Inverness, which is an entirely different matter. He is taking into consideration the maximum acreage of all the lochs. The scheme of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness would involve greater flooding to the extent of well over 1,200 acres, and it would include the flooding of a graveyard at Cildonnain. It would also incidentally destroy the spawning beds between the head of Loch Garry and Loch Poulary.

Sir M. MacDonald: I can assure my hon. Friend that that graveyard is not bigger than this Chamber. It is a graveyard in which the MacDonald clan were buried, and I am sure that my ancestors would be much better pleased to be moved reverently by me to a new situation. They

would turn in their graves if they knew of this proposal.

Mr. Boothby: I do not think my hon. Friend will find that that is an argument which will go down very well in the West of Scotland. It is amusing to hear it to-night, but it is not the sort of thing which will appeal to the West of Scotland. I repeat that the increased flooding under his scheme and the increased expense make it entirely impracticable.
I would like before I come to my concluding observations to remind the House of some of the admitted advantages which will accrue from the passage of this Bill. The hon. Member who seconded the rejection of the Bill referred to the employment which it will give. During the carrying out of the scheme between 3,000 and 5,000 workmen will be employed for a period of three to five years, and thereafter between 300 and 500 will be employed permanently at the factory at Corpach alone. The hon. Member rather sneered at those figures. To anyone from a congested industrial district they are very small, but when it is remembered that there are only 15 crofts in the whole area which we are discussing, employment for 300 to 500 people is a considerable thing. Hon. Members from the distressed areas may jeer at these small figures, but we are grateful for anything in the Highlands, and work for 300 to 500 people would make a considerable difference.

Mr. Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Boothby: No, I cannot. I have taken up too much time already in dealing with a very complicated case.

Mr. Davidson: You made a personal attack.

Mr. Boothby: I am not being personal at all, but answering the argument of the hon. Member. By agreement between the company and the Inverness County Council and the Burgh Council of Fort William, electricity will be supplied within the area covered in the scheme at cost price. Will anybody deny that that will be an advantage to this part of Scotland? In addition, electricity will be available for any small industries, which my hon. Friend is so keen upon, which may be set up experimentally, without


the necessity of incurring heavy initial capital expenditure on electricity and power. The sum of £3,000 will be added to the rateable value of the county of Inverness, and another £30,000 when the hydro-electric works are established. There are 33 parishes in the county of Inverness, and of these only six have industries of some kind or another. In these six parishes the gross annual rateable value has risen from £77,000 in 1881 to £267,000 to-day. In the remaining 27 parishes, which depend entirely upon sport and upon agriculture, the rateable value has fallen from £246,000 in 1881 to £210,000 to-day. That is the difference between the parishes of the county of Inverness which have some industries and those which have not.

Sir John Gilmour: What about the population?

Mr. Boothby: I am quoting the rateable value at the present time.

Mr. MacLaren: You had a de-rating Act.

Mr. Boothby: It is obvious that the population has increased in industrial districts, but I do not think that that is a point worth making. The propaganda against this Bill has been extraordinary, continuous and unprecedented, and, I think, characterised by the most reckless misrepresentation. I have never known anything like it in all the 13½ years I have been a Member of this House. Hon. Members have been deluged with a continuous round of propaganda against this Bill. Much concern has been expressed by hon. Members on all sides in this House and in the public Press about the poor crofters who are going to suffer. One might almost suppose that they had spent hundreds, even thousands of pounds of their hard-earned savings on this propaganda against the Bill in order to save their homes and glens, of which they are so fond. It makes a romantic story. But that is not the case at all. Only 16 crofts are affected in the whole scheme, and they are all to be fully compensated. The crofters, the people in the glens, and the whole of the people in the West of Scotland are in favour of the scheme. They passed a resolution at Glengarry and everywhere else in favour of it. I defy anyone in this House to say that the people are not in favour of it. They are all in favour of it right up to

the Western Isles. Fort William is in favour of it, and the Inverness County Council have unanimously approved the scheme. To give an example of the propaganda, there was an alleged deputation from the fishermen of Loch Hourn the other day. I made inquiries about it and found that it consisted of one farmer. He was the deputation.
Who are the people who are going to suffer and be so adversely affected if the Bill passes into law? We have heard from the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill a lot about the flow of the River Ness. I would repeat to hon. Members what the Minister of Transport told me in reply to a question this afternoon. I asked him:
Whether his Department has made a calculation as to the effect on the flow of the River Ness of the Caledonian power scheme; and, if so, whether he will give the house the results of this calculation?
His answer was:
Yes, Sir. The minimum average depth of water passing over Dochfour Weir into the River Ness during the month of June in 1915, the driest year for which I have complete records, was 18 feet 7½ inches. It is calculated "—
That is, by his Department—
that, in similar conditions as regards rainfall and under the regulated flow from the power stations provided for in the Bill, the average depth of water passing over the Weir will be 18 feet 8½ inches.
That is to say, under this Bill, one inch more water will pass over than passed over in the driest year since 1915. That is the calculation by the Ministry of Transport. [Interruption.] It may be argued that the sewage system of Inverness Town is so bad that it cannot function unless it is flooded out on two or three occasions in the year. If that is the case, it can well be argued that it is high time the town of Inverness put the sewage system into a somewhat better condition than it is at the present time.
Who are to be adversely affected by this scheme? They are, of course, the sportsmen, in the interests of whom, I have no doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) feels a burning enthusiasm. There are three shooting lodges, which, unfortunately, have to go, and one or two keepers' cottages. It may be hard, but these things have to be faced with equanimity mainly in the national in-


terests. Far be it from me to lay my hands upon the sacrosanct rights of the sporting fraternity, but there are occasions, when not many are involved, when we have just to grind our teeth and face up to it. I beg of hon. Members opposite to try and brace themselves up. It is hard for them, I know, but it is really necessary. Lord Brocket, formerly a colleague of ours, is one of the landlords affected. He used an argument last year which no doubt appealed to hon. Members opposite. He said that one of the greatest objections to the scheme was that it would be very difficult to break a strike if one broke out there because of the difficulty of finding alternative labour. I feel that that is an argument which would appeal especially to hon. Members opposite. Still that is not an argument on this Bill. We feel that those strikebreaking days are over, for better or for worse.
These landlords say that they want to keep this stretch of country untouched. They have certainly succeeded up to now. A more untouched stretch of land I have never seen, and it is time that it began to be touched in the interests of the country and the people of Scotland. Other people who claim to be adversely affected are the tourists. How many tourists go to this particular stretch of country? Not so many. When they get there they do not have such a delightfully good time as all that. They do not get all the fishing and shooting which hon. Members opposite seem to suggest who are opposing this Bill so strenuously. If the hon. and learned Gentleman tries to go to Loch Quoich, he will find that he will not get such a very good reception, nor do I think he will find great ease in going everywhere when he gets to that particularly beautiful part of the country. The company, on the other hand, under this Bill is under obligation to construct roads leading and giving direct access to Skye and the Western Isles. It is also under an obligation to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and the county council regarding the architectural design of the dams and works as a whole.
I would ask hon. Gentlemen to remember that these are to be modern works. Are hydro-electric power stations, which are well designed in accordance with modern design, really so ugly and out of keeping with wild surroundings of this

type? I am not at all sure that they are. I am sure that they do not keep tourists away. I would remind hon. Members that we have practical experience. We have it in Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Lochaber, and it suggests the contrary. It suggests that these schemes do not disfigure the country-side in the way that is suggested by distorted views for propaganda purposes. If hon. Members look at the question over the broad field, they cannot say that the Lochaber scheme and similar schemes are so ugly that they will keep tourists away.
It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to talk about the distressed areas. The Highlands are not merely a distressed area, but a derelict area. Since the War the average migration from the Highlands of Scotland has been at the rate of over 3,500 per annum. This particular part of Scotland is a desert, as was said in the last Debate. The population has halved during the last 100 years. To-day there are two inhabitants per square mile in this area as against an average of 600 inhabitants per square mile in this country. What alternative to this Bill has been proposed? Is it proposed to turn this area into a great national park, so that its beauties of scenery shall be thrown open to the population? No such suggestion has been made and no such suggestion will be made.
With regard to the tourists, I think they will come any way. I am certain that they will not be deterred by one or two dams and the construction of the hydro-electric station at Corpach. It is said that if the area is left in its present state there will be seasonal employment for a few more ghillies. I am not an opponent of sport or of ghillies, but I know something about the North of Scotland and I say that part-time employment is the curse of the North of Scotland, and has been for years. Nothing does more to depress the general standard of living in that part of the world than this seasonal part-time employment of people who just pick up what they can for a few weeks and then try to edge themselves on to the dole afterwards. That is what far too many people are at in the North of Scotland. If hon. Members suggest that these people would not like good steady employment at a reasonable wage, they are entirely wrong.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) during the War coined the phrase, "too late." That phrase is alarmingly true in this country at the present time and is terribly applicable to the present situation. If we had had this Bill two years ago we should be able a year hence to manufacture all the carbide that we want in this country, and we should have taken at least one constructive step—the only one that we have had during recent years—to revive the Highlands and bring assistance to them. If we pass the Bill to-night we may still perhaps be in time; we may be able to save the Highlands and to do something for the people who live there. I believe this is the last chance, and I hope the House will approve the Second Reading of the Bill.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Allan Chapman: I do not propose to approach this matter in the detailed manner in which previous speakers have approached it. My support of the Bill is on more general lines, because it seems to me that to have 300 to 500 persons in steady employment in the Highlands is a very considerable contribution towards the unemployment problem. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour would regard such a number as a very valuable contribution in a scattered area where unemployment is chronic at the present time. I also support the Bill on the grounds of Defence. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, who will speak later, will be good enough to address himself to one point. I should be grateful if he would say something on the question of man power as it will be affected by this hydro-electric scheme. The House will agree that modern war is going to make exorbitant demands on man power, and it is very important that we should produce this carbide in wartime by using as few men as possible in the process. There will be very great demands on the mines, in any case, and by adopting this hydro-electric scheme we shall be able to release a certain number of miners for the production of coal for purposes other than carbide or for service outside the mines if required. That is a very important consideration in the matter of Defence, in view of the conditions of modern warfare. I trust my right hon.

Friend will give us some enlightenment on that point.
Many opponents of the Bill, not all of them, but my English colleagues in particular, see the Highlands as a very beautiful countryside, inhabited by romantic people—a paradise of sport; but as Scottish Members we also see it as one of the worst depressed areas. We see it as an area where a proud race of people is being dispersed where depopulation is going on, where the young people are being driven away for want of jobs and the old people are left. In the 10 years previous to 1931, 40,000 people left the Highlands. We must realise that this process cannot go on very much longer without making the Highlands absolutely derelict. We have had committees and inquiries, and still the depopulation goes on. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) raised the question of depopulation, but he concentrated on those areas where there is some sort of industrial enterprise.

Mr. Davidson: I concentrated on the areas affected by the scheme.

Mr. Chapman: Yes, but taking the county as a whole, it is a striking fact that depopulation is still going on in 26 or 27 parishes and rising in only six or seven of them. It is not satisfactory when we find that only in six or seven parishes is the population rising. The hon. Member also made a point about the tourist traffic and said that it would be seriously affected by the dams and the buildings. Almost in the same breath he said that in recent years tourist traffic had increased by 600 per cent. He seemed there to contradict his own argument. If there has been an increase of tourist traffic to that extent, it is clear that the previous hydro-electric schemes established have not affected the scenery to the extent of keeping tourists away. We already know from Fort William and from experience of the Lochaber scheme that it has not kept the tourists away, but that on the other hand they have increased in numbers every year.
I submit to the House and to the opponents of the Bill that we must grip this opportunity of doing something for this Highland area. We have talked about it long enough. Is it never to be brose to-day but always brose to-morrow for the Highlands? We should seize this opportunity offered by a private under-


taking of establishing much employment especially as we can do it without dipping into the pockets of the taxpayer, and we should make the most of it. Deputations have come to see us at the House. I heard a deputation from the County of Inverness declare that any number of young men are anxious to get jobs at the Caledonian Power scheme factory when it is erected. In previous criticisms of the scheme we were told that local labour would not go to it. The evidence of the Lochaber scheme rather contradicts that, for the experience there is that of the people employed, 92 per cent. of the total are Scottish, 64 per cent. of the total being Highland folk and 42 per cent. actually being from Inverness-shire. I think the experience with the Caledonian power scheme will be very similar.
I ask the opponents of the Bill whether they object to hydro-electric power schemes altogether. I would gladly give way if any hon. Member would enlighten me on that point. Or do the opponents of the Bill favour small hydro-electric power schemes up and down the country? If so, it seems to me that their argument about amenities falls to the ground, because instead of affecting the amenities in one area, they would prefer to affect the amenities in dozens of small glens up and down the country. I do not think the question of amenities will keep the tourist away. On the other hand, I believe that the Caledonian power scheme, once it is going, will give steady jobs to between 300 and 500 workmen, and will open larger markets to the crofters. I believe I am correct in saying that Fort William already has experience of this as a result of the Lochaber scheme.
The Caledonian power scheme will bring to the Highlands some of the amenities of town life, the lack of which is driving so many young people away. It will bring a very considerable amount of money into that area to be circulated and spent. If hon. Members desire evidence on these points as it affects the Lochaber scheme—and I believe the same will apply with regard to the Caledonian power scheme—I will quote a paragraph from a letter which I received this morning. It reads:
A community covering an area of over zoo square miles has changed from a state of penury and comparative hardship to happy security by the introduction of the aluminium industry; the outlook of the people has

widened to a remarkable degree until to-day they are the most truly alive in the Highlands.

Mr. Walker: Who signed that letter?

Mr. Chapman: It is written by a gentleman named Ben N. Peach, who lives in Corpach, by Fort William.

Mr. Walker: What is he doing?

Mr. Chapman: According to his qualifications, he is a Bachelor of Science and a Member of the Institute of Civil Engineers. He is also an O.B.E.

Mr. Walker: What does he work at?

Mr. Chapman: I do not know any details about his career or his family life, but if it really interests the hon. Member, I shall have great pleasure in getting in touch with this gentleman and in giving the hon. Member a further description. At least that is evidence from somebody living on the spot that the power scheme in Lochaber has brought definite benefits to that area, and I believe that similar benefits will be conferred by the Caledonian power scheme. The question arose earlier in the Debate as to the alternative schemes for hydro-electric power up in the Highlands. Where are these schemes? A similar Bill to this has been rejected twice. The opponents of the Bill have had ample opportunities to bring forward hydro-electric schemes to develop the Highlands, but have any such schemes been brought forward? I have not seen any, and I venture to suggest that none exists. I suggest to the opponents of the Bill that it is not good enough merely to bring forward negative arguments all the time. Some positive alternative schemes must be offered to the House if the House is to be asked to reject this very practical Measure.
We have heard a great deal about the amenities. As my hon. Friend pointed out, photographs can be made to emphasise almost any aspect of a case; but I suggest that experience of previous hydro-electric schemes goes to show that the dire predictions made when they were brought in have not been fulfilled. If they had been, the tourists would not be going to those areas, and a series of complaints would be reaching us as Members of Parliament. Neither do I think the dire predictions that have been made will be fulfilled in the case of the Caledonian power scheme. It seems to


me that the correct attitude towards this problem can be best summed up in the words of one who had the amenities and beauty of Scotland very much at heart, and who was vice-president of the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland. In giving evidence on the Grampian Electricity Supply Bill, Sir John Stirling Maxwell was asked:
Will you agree that it is far more beneficial to this country that 850 Highlanders should find permanent employment than that you or your licensees should catch a few baskets of fish?
He was pressed very much on that point, and there were two or three intervening remarks which lead to the passage I am about to read. At last, Sir John Stirling Maxwell made the following reply:
My point is this. I do not care a rap about the fishing, and as far as fishing goes, in this scheme, I do not care whether you spoil it altogether; it is a matter of compensation. What I care about is that a very beautiful place is being destroyed, and I want to make quite sure that it is being destroyed for a good purpose. In the cases you have mentioned there was a definite purpose and the thing has been successful, and I rejoice to see it. If you had anyone here who was ready to take this power and you could prove that there would be even 500 people employed, I should say, Let the scenery go; it is a good object.
To my mind, those words sum up the correct attitude even of those who have a love of Highland scenery, as I have.
In 1935, 22 Scottish Members voted for this Bill and 16 against. My hon. Friend told the House that last time, 47 Scottish Members voted for it and 11 against. I think that shows increasing support for the Bill as far as Scottish Members are concerned. Since then, our Welsh colleagues have been satisfied that they are to have their factory. Is it too much to ask them to support a factory in another very derelict and depressed area, where we are promised work for between 300 and 500 persons? I ask hon. Members who represent English constituencies to help those who represent Scottish constituencies by supporting this Bill. This problem of the Highlands is a most intractable one, and in supporting this Bill, I suggest to the House that the Caledonian power scheme at least offers us a hope of beginning to tackle that very difficult problem.

9.23 p.m.

Captain Harold Balfour: I feel that there is no need for any hon. Member, whether he represents a Scottish Division

or not, to make any apology for intervening in this Debate, because I think it raises issues which go far beyond the immediate Scottish position. I wish briefly to deal with two broad issues which it seems to me are of the widest nature. The first is from the Parliamentary point of view, and the second is from the point of view of National Defence. From the Parliamentary point of view, this Bill has been rejected twice before, and it now comes before the House with no new facts produced which alter the principles upon which Parliament previously rejected it. It is true that since the Bill was last rejected by the House, a Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence has investigated and has made a report, the benefit of which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has denied to the House at Question Time, a decision which I venture to think must be regretted by hon. Members on all sides of the House, whatever point of view they may take as regards this issue, and one which cannot commend itself to hon. Members who wish to judge the issue with the maximum of knowledge.
I ask myself, as I believe other hon. Members will ask themselves, whether it is right that Parliament should allow the procedure of Private Bill legislation to acquire, for purposes of private gain, public and private property, and that, for the first time, powers should be given to a private corporation, without having that private corporation hedged round with obligations and undertakings such as this House insists upon when we give any such public body as a railway company the powers for which this corporation asks. Again, should private hands take over public resources which I am sure that hon. Members above the Gangway feel should belong to the nation? It would seem to me extraordinary if any hon. Member who calls himself a sincere Socialist should go into the Lobby in support of this Bill, which takes away from the nation and hands over to private individuals those things which they say day after day by Socialist creed belong by divine right to the people.
The third point I desire to make from the Parliamentary aspect is the unfairness of the burden put upon small and often impoverished public bodies by the demands made upon them by a wealthy private concern which brings forward


such a Bill as this year after year. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) said that Inverness County Council was unanimously in favour of this Measure. Well, it is easier for the Inverness County Council to be unanimous in favour of this Measure when they have had opportunities presented to them, as they have had by the British Oxygen Company, which the Inverness Burgh Council have not had.

Mr. Boothby: Why does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that the British Oxygen Company keeps coming to this House again and again when he knows that they have to come as a result of the report of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

Captain Balfour: They come because they want to get this Bill through for their own purposes. As the hon. Member himself said, they are in business and are not philanthropists. I am not saying whether that is right or wrong; all I do say is that it is a clear answer to the point made by the hon. Member himself. I come now to the advantage—a very doubtful advantage, I think—that the Inverness County Council have had in putting the maximum pressure upon all bodies whose support they desired to get. I have here the "Inverness Courier" which has an article headed: "Promoters to pay County Council's deputation's expenses." Here we have people in the public service, elected by public vote, coming to London and having their expenses blatantly and openly paid by a commercial concern. I consider it has done their cause little good, and it is a practice of doubtful taste to introduce into our public life. Even if the Inverness Burgh Council have not had the advantage of the great resources of the British Oxygen Company, I do not think their cause will suffer or be prejudiced by such a lack of opportunity when this House comes to consider it.
I want now to turn to the Defence point. We are shortly going to have the benefit of a speech from the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence—a speech which we hope will reveal some of those secrets of the findings of the committee, such as the comparative costs of the Port Talbot and Caledonian schemes, which have hitherto been denied to the House —I submit unfairly. We started this

Debate at half-past seven and the House is to be denied knowledge of the full facts of the case by the Government until about 10 o'clock. That, I submit, is not fair. At any rate certain deductions can be drawn from what we know. The report of the Carbide Committee has proved the practicability of producing carbide by steam, and the Government has endorsed that view by sanctioning and supporting the Port Talbot scheme. What the House would like to know is what is the difference in production costs as between Scotland and South Wales, and why should not the Port Talbot scheme be duplicated, either in South Wales or in some other distressed area? Let us assume for a moment that when the right hon. Gentleman comes to reply he will tell us the Caledonian scheme is the only possible second site, and that at the same time the production of carbide is vital to the national interests because of shipping difficulties during wartime.
If the Caledonian scheme is the only possible alternative why have the Government agreed to the Port Talbot scheme? The British Oxygen Company is to go forward with the Port Talbot scheme, and the Government in their speeches have made some capital out of the fact. It is no good a Minister on the Front Bench shaking his head, because the promoters hope to get this Bill through very largely because they have got the Port Talbot scheme as what I may call a sweetener for other Members of the House. If we are to have the argument that the import of 100,000 tons of carbide a year in war time is a grave menace because of shipping difficulties, would it not be better to grow more food in order that we need not have to rely upon our shipping for food imports? It would be very much better if we had a more advanced food policy for the greater production and storage of food; that is much more important than the production of 100,000 tons of carbide in this country to save shipping imports.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that £3,000,000 is to be spent on this scheme by private enterprise, let us remember that it is for private gain. Good Conservative as I am, if the interests of national safety are involved in this particular issue I would prefer to see a parallel with the aircraft shadow factories and a carbide production plant paid for out of public moneys. If the British


Oxygen Company are able to make this scheme pay for itself and to yield a profit of 6 per cent., or whatever the percentage is, then why should not the Treasury advance the money and get all the advantages that the British Oxygen Company are to get?
I submit that national safety cannot be compromised on and that we must be told clearly by the Minister whether this is vital for national defence or whether it is not. If it is not, let the Bill meet its fate according to the free vote of the House. If it is vital for national defence, then I think the Government have failed in their duty in not driving through this Measure by every force at their command. If we are to be told by the Minister that it is vital for national defence, why not put on the Whips? Why not bring forward a Government Bill for something like the shadow factories? Then I and all the other Members who oppose this Bill, at the present time, would gladly support them. But if the Government come here and recommend this Bill, as they may well do, but say, "We do not think it vital or imperative but we would like it all the same," that will be a poor weak attitude in the view of all who have national defence at heart as the prime consideration at the present time.
Why not take over this Bill, if it is of vital necessity, and use the whole of the Government's forces to implement the view that it is necessary for national defence? Or is it that the Government would like to see the Bill passed, but are prepared if necessary to see it thrown out by this House, though with some regret? Is that assumption wrong? I hope it is, because if it is not the Government are failing in courage in their handling of this problem, If my last assumption is right, and the Government are willing to see the Bill thrown overboard if necessary, but would, at the same time, like to see it passed, then surely the House can with a free conscience reject this Bill, knowing that we are not in any way impairing that national safety which is the paramount desire of everyone in this House.

9.38 p.m.

The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): I cannot hope to imitate the animation of my hon.

and gallant Friend who has just spoken. I do not think I have ever been charged in this House before with treating the House unfairly, and I regret very much that this Bill should have been the occasion of that charge being made against me for the first time. My hon. and gallant Friend said that the Bill came forward for the third time although no new facts had emerged.

Captain Balfour: No new principles.

Sir T. Inskip: No, my hon. and gallant Friend said "no new facts." But let me take his corrected version. The fact, or the principle, that has emerged is in the statement which I made some weeks or some months ago, that this scheme, part of which is now before the House, had been approved by the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence as the most complete and satisfactory scheme for the production of calcium carbide. I regard that, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend on reflection will also regard it, as a new factor in the situation.

Captain Balfour: I did mention it.

Sir T. Inskip: My hon. and gallant Friend complained very much that the report of the sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence had not been disclosed. It was in that connection as well as in another connection, that he made the charge against me of having treated the House very unfairly, and he did so amidst the cheers of his supporters. My hon. and gallant Friend smiles at it. I do not know whether he will think that that is a just charge to make against me when he remembers that I have informed the House already, on more than one occasion, that the Committee invited and received the evidence that was put before it, upon the understanding that no public disclosure would be made of confidential evidence by the publication of the report. If my hon. and gallant Friend expects me to break that honourable understanding, in order that I may be relieved from a charge by him of unfairness, he expects me to do something which I am not prepared to do.
The position I am in this evening is that I am called upon to give to the House, if I may say so respectfully, such advice and help as I can in this matter, and if the facts which I state and the opinions which I express tend in one


direction or another, I suggest that that will be due merely to the logic of the argument and not to prejudice or private or partial affection as far as I am concerned. First, there is this fact of the committee's report and I need say no more about that. There is also the fact—I am now surveying the forces on either side—that all local opinion, except the opinion of one or two proprietors, is in favour of the Bill. It is true that the town council of Inverness, being interested in the flow of the River Ness but being situated some 6o miles away from the nearest point of the area concerned, opposes the Bill. The County Council of Inverness, the County Council of Ross and Cromarty, and the local authorities of Corpach and Fort William all support the Bill, and their requirements have been met by the promoters. The opposition, in addition to that of the town of Inverness, is, in general, the opposition of those societies that are interested in the scenic beauties of this district and of the proprietors of lands or fishings that are affected by the scheme.
In those circumstances, it falls to me to try to correct one or two misapprehensions as to the facts or as to the precedents for this scheme, and then to say a few words on the Defence aspect of the question. I am not concerned to argue the question of the comparative costs of hydro-electric schemes or thermo-electric schemes, nor to argue on the correctness of the estimates made as to the costs of generating electricity at Corpach and at Port Talbot, but lest the statement which has been made by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. J. J. Davidson) might affect hon. Members, I am sure he will allow me to correct him on one point. He gave the cost of generating electricity at Corpach at 24 of a penny whereas the cost is estimated at exactly half that figure, namely, 12 of a penny. That inaccurate statement affects his comparison, which was between 24 of a penny at Corpach and what he gave as the cost of steam generation at Port Talbot, namely, 185 of a penny. But his figure of the cost of steam generation at Port Talbot was also inaccurate. The calculation gives a figure which is slightly different, namely, 165 of a penny. Those are really points for examination, in the later stages of the Bill, by the

hon. Members of the Committee upstairs, with the help of counsel. This is a question for them to examine and it is impossible for the House, without all the facts and details before them, to deal with it on this occasion.
Now I want to say a few words about the scenery. I cannot help thinking that a great many of my hon. Friends who are opposing this Bill are deeply affected by the apprehensions which they feel as to the destruction of a singularly beautiful part of the Northern Kingdom. But some of us in this House have first-hand experience of the effect upon the scenery of other water power schemes. I think that if five or six years ago anybody had visited the scene of the great reservoir near New Galloway and had been told that a large dam was to be placed across the Galloway Dee with the effect of drying up the bed of the river for a few miles, they would have felt, as I did, unhesitating opposition to the project, but if anyone should visit that scene to-day, it is quite true that if you stood in a particular position below the great Clatteringshaw Dam and looked up at the concrete mass of masonry, it would be magnificent from the point of view of the engineer, though not from any other point of view, but if you should take up a position at almost any other point, you would see one of the most beautiful scenes spread out before your eyes that has ever delighted a visitor to the Highlands of Scotland.
The fact is that these schemes, if they are properly managed and controlled, do not destroy the scenic beauties; indeed, they add a feature, from one point of view, which must give satisfaction to those who are employed as a result of them, and that is that, without destroying the beauties of Nature, they have used the gifts of Nature for the service of mankind. That is the fact about these water schemes. I want to say no more about scenery except this, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has the power under this Bill to appoint a committee to attend to this question of the desecration of the scenery. There is a Clause in the Bill by which the promoters are required to consult the architects of the county councils in order that appropriate buildings may be erected at the different power stations or sluice houses in connection with the works.
Let me now say a word or two about the amenities apart from the scenery. I feel to the full the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) as to the flow of his river, but I cannot quite accept the opinion that everything in the town of Inverness, with the somewhat primitive system of the removal of the town sewage by an occasional spate, is satisfactory. Let me remind my hon. Friend of the report of the sanitary inspector for the Burgh in 1936:
Sewage disposal is effected by discharging direct and in crude form to the estuary of the River Ness. The main outfalls at Citadel and Thornbush Road give rise to a nuisance during the Summer and particularly when tides are low. A deposit of sewage on the river banks is noticeable and particularly objectionable.
This is a primitive amenity which the Town Council of Inverness enjoys to-day and which this Bill is about to destroy. I will go a little further and say to my hon. Friend that certainly I have no wish that this Bill should emerge from the Committee upstairs, if it has a Second Reading, without proper provision being made for the necessities of his town council. That is a point that must be dealt with in Committee; it is a matter of proper Clauses to protect the inhabitants of Inverness. I rather suspect that the inhabitants of Inverness may find it better to take this opportunity of correcting the state of things which I have described, and possibly to receive some cooperation from those who are promoting this Bill, and I commend that course to my hon. Friend.
With regard to the other amenities, provisions have been made in accordance with the requirements of the Fishery Board of Scotland, and although I am not saying that all these fishing boxes and ladders invariably achieve their object, at any rate the works that will be devised will be the best that the Fishery Board can suggest. They have been successful in a great many other cases, but even if they were not successful, the question still remains, which is the main question for the House to-night. Is this Bill in the interests of the community, or is it not? If it is in the interests of the community, the fishing rights of a few proprietors do not matter; if it is not in the interests of the community, then no doubt the Bill ought not to be given a Second Reading.
Now may I say a word about the precedents for this Bill, for on this there has been a good deal of misapprehension? Hon. Members have spoken as if this was the first time that a Bill of this kind has been promoted, that is to say, a Bill giving a private company exclusive rights over water powers. I may remind the House that there have been at least four such Acts within recent times. The Lochaber Water Power Act has been referred to. Why did the Lochaber Company require electric power? It was in order that it might be used for the manufacture of aluminium, which the representative of the Board of Trade, who was then Sir William Mitchell-Thomson, described to the House as an important trading interest for the purpose of the manufacture of which it was very desirable that the House should pass the Lochaber Water Power Bill. The Loch Leven Water Power Act of a few years before was passed for precisely the same reason, namely, to enable aluminium to be manufactured by hydro-electric power at Fort William, just across the water, as it were, from Corpach, so let nobody think that Corpach is going to be an excrescence. If it is properly looked after by the county council, it will be an addition to what is already a small industrial centre, and greatly to the benefit of the happiness, as I am advised on first-hand information, of the inhabitants.
But these are not the only Acts. I have referred to the Galloway Water Power Act of 1929, passed by this House only nine years ago. There was also the Grampian Electric Supply Act of 1922. Both of those Acts were for generating electricity by private companies to be sold to the Grid, for the purpose of paying dividends to the people who had risked their capital in the construction of those schemes. In case anybody says that the Lochaber scheme went through unopposed, that is not the case. It was opposed very strenuously in this House and required a speech by the Government representatives to bring the House to a knowledge of the facts upon which they passed the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness has referred with a little indignation to the fact that these waters of Loch Quoich are being diverted from an eastward flow to a westward flow. All I can say is that it has been done three or four times in recent


years. The upper waters of the Spey were diverted from east to west under the Lochaber Water Power Act. In the Galloway water power scheme the waters of Loch Doon, which flow westward to the Ayrshire seaboard, were diverted southward to the Solway Firth.

Sir M. MacDonald: Will my right hon. Friend also point out that the Grampian and Galloway schemes are controlled by the Electricity Commissioners, and that consequently they cannot earn all the money that they would otherwise earn?

Sir T. Inskip: The Lochaber scheme is not so controlled.

Sir M. MacDonald: I differentiated between three types of schemes. I pointed out that the Galloway and Grampian schemes were one set and were controlled, and that the Lochaber scheme belonged to another set which was not controlled, but that they owned their water rights; whereas the Caledonian scheme is not controlled and is able to earn all that it can.

Sir T. Inskip: Neither the Lochaber scheme nor the Loch Leven scheme is controlled by the Electricity Commissioners.

Sir M. MacDonald: That is what I said.

Sir T. Inskip: Then we both agree. They are both precedents for such a Bill as this, more particularly as they were passed for the purpose of supplying electricity for the manufacture of aluminium at Fort William. I was dealing with the question of diversion, and let me give a third illustration. In the Grampian electricity scheme some waters of the Spey were diverted from the Moray Firth to the Firth of Tay. I have not any special reverence for precedents, but do not let the House oppose the Bill thinking that it is an unwarranted use of Parliamentary powers when proposals are made to divert waters.
Here again I want to say a word to correct an impression which some hon. Members have obviously formed that there is something outrageous in the proposal to relieve this company of part of its rating liability. The House may approve it or not, and no doubt it is a factor in this discussion, but let us make no mistake about the fact that it is perfectly usual and, I should have thought,

a perfectly proper provision. In this case there is to be relief of half of the rates for five years; in other words, during the development or the construction period. It is a form of relief which has been given in the case of the other water power Acts to which I have referred; it has been accepted by the Inverness County Council as satisfactory to them, and, in the opinion of the Scottish Office, it is a reasonable provision. The Inverness County Council will benefit by a substantial addition to its rateable value when this scheme is completed.
I must say a word about the relation of Corpach and Port Talbot. These schemes fall together and, I am advised, form part of one scheme. The House will take that into consideration and will allow it to sway their judgment as they think fit. It is a fact that the Port Talbot scheme would not be complete or sound unless both schemes go forward together.

Mr. James Grffiths: It has been stated in South Wales by the Mayor of Port Talbot that, whether this Bill goes through or not, the Port Talbot scheme will go on.

Sir T. Inskip: That is perfectly true, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) stated, I am not prepared to let the House be put in the position that the existence of the Port Talbot scheme should be left as a sort of bribe to the House. That was one of the first undertakings which I required before I played any part in considering the arguments in favour of and against the Bill. I hope the House will agree that in that respect I have treated them fairly. The Port Talbot scheme will go forward. It is at present a comparatively small one, and it depends for its permanent success, I am advised, upon the companionship of the Corpach scheme, because the Corpach costs will be very much lower than the Port Talbot costs. By pooling the costs of the two schemes the company expects to be able to manufacture and to distribute at a reasonable rate of profit the articles manufactured. That is why the company have put the two parts of this scheme together as parts of a complete entity.

Mr. Bevan: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that the Scottish scheme will subsidise the Welsh scheme?

Sir T. Inskip: Yes, certainly, it is one company, and the two concerns will be


treated as part of a complete scheme. I now pass to another aspect of this case which will throw light on this part of my statement. The House will accept or reject the statement I have made as an argument in favour of the Bill. They will treat it as they please, but that, I am advised, is the intention of the plan of the promoters of this scheme. I think that the House should know a little more about what is proposed with regard to the manufacture at these two places. Two classes of commodity will be manufactured; one is calcium carbide and the other is ferro alloys. The ferro alloys require a much larger consumption of units of electricity than the carbide— 3,000 to 4,000 units for carbide per ton, and 4,000 to 18,000 units for the ferro alloys per ton. The flexibility of productive capacity for either of these two classes of material is a very important part of the scheme. They can be manufactured in electric furnaces of substantially the same character, although, as a matter of fact, there will in all probability be a double system which will enable the electric power to be switched on to separate are furnaces for carbide manufacture or for ferro-alloy manufacture as required. It is only at Corpach that the cost of electricity will be low enough to enable the more expensive alloys to be manufactured economically. At Port Talbot it will probably be entirely calcium carbide.
It is in connection both with calcium carbide and with ferro alloys that there arises the Defence aspect, upon which I want to say my closing words. My hon. Friend who preceded me suggested that if the Government had the courage of their convictions or felt that this was a Defence interest, they should put on the Whips. So far as I know, the Whips are never put on on a Private Bill, and I cannot think that hon. Members will agree with my hon. Friend that they cannot exercise their intelligence unaided without the assistance of the Government Whips. Calcium carbide is consumed in this country to a volume of about 60,000 tons. It is on the increase. It is indispensable. About 50 per cent. of that 60,000 tons is used for welding and cutting metals, and is absolutely essential in aircraft construction, shipbuilding and for fabricating other munitions. About 30 per cent. is used for making important chemicals, and the remaining 20

per cent. is used partly for plastics, for manufacturing high-speed cutting tools and for various other purposes. These are all indispensable articles for industry, and especially in war time. What is our position in war? If this or some similar Bill is not passed, and an industry established, it sill be necessary for shiploads of something like 1,000 or 1,200 tons every week to come from Norway or elsewhere to supply this vital necessity.

Mr. Bevan: That is not so.

Sir T. Inskip: The hon. Member says that is not the case. I can only offer my contribution.

Mr. Bevan: It can be produced elsewhere in this country.

Sir T. Inskip: I say this Bill or some similar Bill. If it is not manufactured in this country it will have to come from Norway. We are the only important nation in Europe which does not at the present time manufacture calcium carbide for itself. Italy does it, Russia does it, Japan does it and Germany does it. I suggest it is an advantage that private persons should be prepared to put up the substantial sum of money to establish this industry in our country.

Mr. MacLaren: These countries control their own water.

Sir T. Inskip: I do not know whether that is so or not. It is important that we should have this material manufactured here. Let me take the position as to ferro alloys. These are required in large quantities. Ferro-chrome had to be imported last year to the tune of 18,000 tons. Thirty-seven thousand tons of ferro-silicon were also required for high grade steel of particular hardness or tensile strength. At present we mainly obtain our supplies from continental countries. The raw materials are obtainable largely from the Empire, but they are taken to other countries, and there manufactured, and the manufactured article which is indispensable for industry in peace and war is brought to this country. I suggest to the House that it might be better that this manufacture should take place in this country, and that the raw materials should come direct—largely as they will—from the Empire to Great Britain, so that we might have the advantage of the industry


in this country and the security of the manufacture taking place under our own flag.
The hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) suggested that I should say this was a vital necessity for Defence. I will put my advice in my own way and not in his. I do not take the responsibility of saying what I do not believe, that it is absolutely essential to Defence that this calcium carbide and these ferro alloys should be manufactured in this country. There are some things essential for Defence, and there are some things desirable. It is all a question of degree. One of my most anxious tasks is in connection with supply in time of war. The proper use of our shipping, the degree to which we are dependent on sources which may be opposed to us in war, and the volume of supply are all matters which have to be considered from day to day by the Supply Board of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I can only say that the passage of this Bill, if the House in its good judgment is minded to give it a Second Reading, would be a great relief to me in my anxious responsibility and would be a most valuable contribution to the solution of our supply problems in time of war. The House will use its own judgment in this matter. If it thinks the arguments about a private company, about scenery, or about the diversion of water are such as to make those arguments weigh more heavily than those I have mentioned, it will reject the Bill. In that case I shall personally have no complaint against any hon. Member, but I can but offer advice which seems to me right in the circumstances I have mentioned.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman wound up his speech by telling the House in effect that it was essential for the defence of this nation that we should manufacture carbide inside this realm.

Sir T. Inskip: indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnston: Either it is not essential or it is, that we should produce this carbide within the bounds of this realm. If it be essential in the national interest that carbide should be produced here then I believe, and many hon. Members on

this side do also most sincerely believe, that it is the duty of the Government to see to it that a national necessity is produced and not, as is done in this Bill, to postpone the production of that necessity for another five years.

Sir T. Inskip: The point to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has not been previously raised, hut if he is suggesting that these works could not be used to produce carbide for five years he is in error. The works will take five years to construct, but by harnessing the grid to the works, which can be completed in 12 months, in case of war, when the question of economy would not be so important, carbide could be produced in 12 months.

Mr. Johnston: We hear now for the first time that it is possible under this scheme to have calcium carbide produced, in a time of emergency, at the end of 12 months. If that be so, is there any reason why the other disadvantages of this scheme should be imposed upon the Highlands of Scotland? The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and the right hon. Gentleman have united about one thing, and that is that they would say nothing whatever either by hint, direct statement or otherwise about the handing over of the natural resources of our country to a private corporation. We have been told about the production of carbide. I am not in a position to offer any opinion as between the differing views of experts. There are many engineers on both sides. There is a county council on one side and the burgh of Inverness on the other. There are men in both camps to whose opinions normally I would pay very great attention, and certainly I could not oppose them with any opinion which would be worth while. I said so last year when the Measure was before us, and many hon. Members on this side then voted for the Second Reading on the understanding that the matters in dispute as to production, flow of water and the rest of it would be adequately threshed out in public by those who know best. Yet to-night we are being asked to decide technical questions. I cannot do that, but as a citizen I can give my opinion upon this point. that for the third time we are being asked to hand over to a private corporation, for purposes of gain, the great natural resources of our country. I wonder whether


the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the extent to which this sort of thing has gone on? I have had a map prepared. Perhaps I ought to have shown it to him.

Sir T. Inskip: The right hon. Gentleman has.

Mr. Johnston: It is a map showing the areas in the North of Scotland where, already, private interests have monopolistic control of hydraulic power for the production of electricity under powers conferred by this House. Apart from this Bill those interests cover four-fifths of the area, and they are practically all controlled by one corporation, the Scottish Power Company. They have various subsidiaries, they trade under various names, but the Scottish Power Company, which pays 8 per cent. on its capital, is now to be joined by the Caledonian Power Company. All we are told about it is that it is a Scottish corporation. It is paying 15 per cent. dividend now. Have we any guarantee that these shares will not be peddled on the New York market next week? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the extent to which holding companies, sub-holding companies, and sub-sub-holding companies are already dealing in electricity. I will tell him of a great American corporation with 100,000,000 dollars capital.

Mr. George Balfour: Before the right hon. Gentleman goes on with that point. I am sorry to have to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but I happen to be responsible for the Scottish Power Company in Scotland, and it has never paid more than 8 per cent. I wish to correct the statement of the right hon. Gentleman as to 15 per cent. dividend, and also to say that he is confusing the public supply of electricity from the North of Scotland down to Berwickshire by transmission lines with the development of a hydroelectric undertaking.

Mr. Johnston: No, Sir, I am not confusing it and if the hon. Gentleman will look at my remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning he will find that I said that the Scottish Power Company had paid 8 per cent. and not 15 per cent.

Mr. Balfour: Mr. Balfour indicated dissent.

Hon. Members: He did say so.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman might listen to what I have to say in

reply. I said that the Scottish Power Company paid 8 per cent. and the Caledonian Power Company—[HON. MEMBERS: British Oxygen.'']—well, the parent of the Caledonian Power Company, is paying 15 per cent. Is that right? Does the hon. Gentleman deny that?

Mr. Balfour: I have nothing to do with the British Oxygen Company.

Mr. Johnston: There is one corporation, the Electrical Bond and Share Company, with 100,000,000 dollars of capital. Its headquarters are in New York and it owns the American and Foreign Power Company, Incorporated, with another 50,000,000 dollar capital. It buys Whitehall Electric Investments, Limited, with 7,500,000 capital, and has as its subsidiary, Whitehall Securities, with another £4,000,000. They are pretty well controlling the electrical corporations in Southern England. We have heard that this is a Scottish company; how long will it continue to be a Scottish company? If this matter is essential in the national interest, will anybody say why the Government ought not to do to-night what a Conservative Government did with the MacBrayne Steamship Company when similar difficulties had arisen. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), whom I see here to-night, was Secretary of State for Scotland and Mr. Bonar Law was Prime Minister, they stepped boldly forward and made the MacBrayne Steamship Company into a public corporation, with a limited dividend, Government directors, fixed freights and rates, and all the rest of it. Why should our water be handed over to a private corporation at this time of day, in 1938?
I am not altogether sure that I accept all the arguments of those who have been putting forward objections to the Bill. Some of the objectors are themselves proprietors of deer forest rights, and have no very great interest in the public welfare, or in tourists or anything else. This is a national heritage. The day will come when these beautiful areas will no longer be the preserve of a small privileged class, and when the nation as a whole will demand the right to enjoy the beauties of our countryside; yet we are handing over for three-quarters of a century a monopoly in the water power


of a beautiful area to a private corporation. If we could get no satisfactory answers to the questions which we put a year ago, I trust that on this occasion the House will register its protest in the only way possible, by voting against the Bill.

10.25 p.m.

Marquess of Clydesdale: I intervene for a few moments to support the Second Reading of the Bill. I was rather disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston); I think he made a very much better speech last year. I could not help wondering whether, if this undertaking were to be a nationalised concerned, he would have supported the Bill. I think he would.

Mr. Johnston: Yes.

Marquess of Clydesdale: But to-day it is not a matter of supporting private enterprise; it is that, if this particular scheme should be nationalised, all the hydro-electric schemes should be nationalised also. That, however, is not the point at all. The point is not whether we should nationalise this scheme or not, but whether we shall have a scheme there at all. I propose to touch on one or two points which I think are important. We have had a very clear statement from the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, and I believe that the House as a whole believes that the manufacture of carbide in this country would be a great national asset. We have, broadly speaking, to deal with many issues, but I am not going into technicalities. We have the report of the Committee of Imperial Defence to the effect that this is a complete and satisfactory scheme, and I think that that is a pretty clear answer. I should like, however, to touch on one or two of the objections. The question of amenities has been dealt with. Anyone who has travelled in Norway or Switzerland will realise that the hydro-electric schemes in those countries have not by any means spoilt the beauties of the country. We have a number of hydro-electric schemes in Scotland, and I maintain in the strongest language that Scotland still retains its superb beauty.
One has heard Scottish Members to-day speaking for or against this Bill, but I sincerely believe that the people of Scot-

land as a whole want the Bill; they want an industry in the Highlands of Scotland. Two years ago a similar Bill came forward, and the majority of Scottish Members voted for it. Last year, more than three-quarters of the Scottish Members of the House voted for this Bill, and less than one-quarter voted against it. I believe that, if the Second Reading of this Bill is rejected, it will be deeply resented in Scotland, and I believe it will provide the Scottish Nationalist party with the very best possible ammunition that they have ever had. Hon. Members may laugh at the suggestion of a Scottish Nationalist party, but it is a very live party. In my own case in 1931, when Conservatives were getting many more votes than they ever got before—I polled more than I had ever polled before—my Scottish Nationalist opponent polled between 6,000 and 7,000 votes.

Mr. Davidson: He is opposed to the Bill.

Marquess of Clydesdale: I do not say that they would necessarily use the ammunition. I said that it was the best they could possibly have. If you strengthen the Scottish Nationalist party, you might raise a serious political problem in Scotland, which might cause embarrassment not only in Scotland but in this very House. The Highlands of Scotland are undoubtedly a depressed area. There is a higher percentage of unemployment in the Highlands of Scotland than in the Special Areas. It is true that the population of the Highlands is not as great as that of the depressed areas, but the reason is that the Highlands have been depopulated. [Interruption.] Yes; during the last 10 years 40,00o people have left the Highlands. After all, this scheme does put the Caledonian Power Company under certain obligations. It will be under an obligation to supply electricity at cost price to the inhabitants in the district and at cost price to any light industries which may be started in that area. We have heard a great deal about the preservation of Scotland. I can only think that the preservation of Scotland means keeping Scotland in a fossilised condition. I firmly believe that here is a scheme that will bring some degree of prosperity to the Highlands, and a measure of hope to many Highlanders.

10.32 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Ellis: I would like to bring the House back to essential points. One


is the location of industry, and the other is national necessity. As far as the claims of districts go, great as the needs of the Highlands may be from the point of view of Scotland, there are districts in England and Wales which need assistance far more than the Highlands. [Interruption.] Scottish Members will forgive me for saying that that is the point of view of people in other districts. On the question of national necessity, the Minister has been very frank indeed. He has told us, in as guarded a way as possible, that he would like this Bill because he believes that it will give him the carbide he ought to have had and the ferro-alloys that are needed in industries. Carbide is not coming in Scotland for at least four years by any hydro-electric scheme. I should say, from the point of view of national necessity, that if we do not have a war in four years, we shall have peace for much more. National necessity means immediate carbide. That can be got only by putting the grid on to a carbide station. Therefore, what national necessity demands to-day is immediate carbide in the quickest way: that is by putting it on the grid in the depressed areas. As far as the committee is concerned, the report, of course, as given to the world, is not a technical report at all. It is a purely political report. It is two sops to Cerberus—one to Scotland, and one to South Wales. If the report were a technical one, surely the Committee would have given us some reason for the choice of two places instead of one. The Minister has told us, from his point of view, that the two schemes work together, and that the losses in South Wales are made up by the gain in Scotland. That is no sort of commercial or technical arrangement. I suggest that if the Committee had been honest with themselves and the Government, it would have been better to tell the truth and let the political side of the scheme go by. Therefore, regretful as one must feel to vote against the wishes of the Government on this occasion, no case has been made out for delaying, on the ground of national necessity, the manufacture of carbide, which should be put on the grid, and that immediately

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I propose to vote for this Measure, and I would not like to give a silent vote. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis) spoke about this as a sop—a gift to Scotland and

a gift to South Wales. If that is the best that can be done for us, it will not influence me in any way. I want to answer the point of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) about this being the handing over of public rights to private enterprise. What are the public rights that are being handed over? I have never been inside that bit of territory in my life. If I tried to go into it, I should be chased by gamekeepers. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is very wrong to hand over public rights to private enterprise for profit. May I remind him that the Labour Government, when they were faced with practical propositions like the building of the "Queen Mary," supported the handing over of public support to private enterprise for profit. Does he realise that the Road Transport Act, which was passed by a Government of which he was a member, handed over monopoly rights in the road under which great motor traction combines have grown up in his own area and in my area, in South Wales, in Cumberland and in every part of the country. They have grown up under monopoly rights granted in legislation passed by a Labour Government. The argument in the words of every Socialist who supported it was that they were helping to organise this sort of thing, and that in the right and proper season the question of national ownership would be decided in a more wholesale way.
The hon. Member for Inverness said that the amenities of Inverness must not be interfered with and that private companies have no right to do this for profit. That was the doctrine first put forward. There used to be amenities in that part of the country in which I was born. I am interested in the attitude which says that, if there is any dirty or highly disagreeable work, dump it at Glasgow and do not let it get near Inverness. I used to live in the Garngad area in Glasgow for three years where, as many hon. Members know, there are three chemical works within 100 yards of my door, and the right hon. Gentleman says, "Give him another one."

Sir M. MacDonald: In not one of the three statements I have made to this House, including that to-night, have I suggested for a moment that the work should be placed or should not be placed in Corpach.

Mr. Maxton: I know. I carried it a wee bit too far. What the hon. Gentleman said was that in Inverness, if that is to be the case, it is to be on the offside of Corpach to Inverness.

Sir M. MacDonald: My argument was entirely restricted to this point, that a private company, for its private gain, should not be allowed to damage or to interfere with public rights such as the town of Inverness possesses.

Mr. Maxton: The public rights of the town of Inverness.

Sir M. MacDonald: The hon. Member should be fair.

Mr. Maxton: Fair. Does the hon. Member suggest that at this late hour we should be tied by a rule like that? I do not think that I have been unfair. Within the last month or two it has been decided, by statutory powers conferred by this House, that a private company is to have the right to work for coal underneath the town where I live in Scotland, underneath parts of Glasgow, on which the Glasgow Corporation have built new housing estates. In due course those estates will suffer the consequences of those underground operations. Is not that a tremendous interference with public rights in the name of private property?
Let me put a further point. The hon. Member has done more in the way of tidal engineering in different parts of the world than any other man in this House. Has he ever done one engineering scheme that did not interfere in some way with the rights of somebody? He talks of the amenities of Inverness and says that no private company has a right to pollute the River Ness or to reduce the flow of the water. I was brought up in a town called Barrhead.

Mr. MacLaren: That is not a town.

Mr. Maxton: I admit that in the West of Scotland it might not be considered so. I admit that it is not of very considerable importance. It is only about the same size as Inverness. Through that town there runs the River Leven. We thought it was a great river in those days. I am speaking of 48 years ago. I and my school mates used to "dook" in it. It was a most interesting river, because one day of the week it would be

blue, another day it would be black, another day it would be red, and another day it would go all patriotic and be red, white and blue. It all depended upon what dyes the calico print works up the road were using. Surely, it is much too late for the hon. Member for Inverness to come here and talk about this new crime they have just discovered up in Inverness. It is time that Inverness started doing what the rest of Scotland has been doing for 100 years.

10.45 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Far be it from me at this late hour to go into the technicalities of this important question. I admire the grasp of those technicalities which was displayed by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson), although I did not share what I thought was his almost childlike confidence in the opinions of the various experts whom he had consulted, because I know that experts, in a matter of this sort, can be quoted ad nauseam on both sides. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) that we need not concern ourselves with those technicalities. Nor, I think, is it necessary for me to deal with the point, of which the right hon. Gentleman made so much, about the handing over of these great public rights to a private company to exploit, partly because that aspect has been so well exposed by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and partly because it raises the wholly different and immense issue of whether or not there shall be control by the State of the water power and other great national works, a question which will have to be decided on its merits and applied not only to this scheme but to all other schemes.
The point is that to-night we have a definite proposal for the development of this water power in the Highlands. If we throw it aside, are we going to have any Government proposals? Of course, we are not. Is the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis), w ho criticised it, going to bring forward a proposal? Of course not. It is this proposal or nothing. Therefore, I say that this is our only chance in the Highlands, and I appeal to the House not to deprive us of it. The hon. Member for Ecclesall said that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence was very frank about the Defence aspect of this. Having paid the Minister


that compliment, the hon. Member did not seem to be sufficiently grateful for that frankness, because he proceeded to try to turn it most unfairly against the Minister. The Minister, in answer to a challenge by the hon. and gallant Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour), told the House clearly that this scheme was not essential, but he said—and surely none of us ought to under-estimate the weight of his word—that, carrying this enormous burden of responsibility for the Defence of the country, in what all hon. Members know is a time of danger, if the House gave him this Bill it would help to relieve that anxious burden of his responsibility. Surely, there is no hon. Member who, realising what that burden of responsibility is for National Defence, can deny to the Minister that relief for which he is asking. [Interruption.] The Minister has made it clear that if the emergency occurred, the works could be put on the grid and there would be the power for the manufacture of carbide within twelve months.
Who is against the Bill? The people who are against it, as the Minister said, are the sporting interests in the Highlands, and the societies who think they are protecting beauty. Who has not been in the Alps in Switzerland and in Austria, and seen the great power stations there? Do they affect the beauty of the country? Not in the least. What the people of the Highlands want is a chance to live in their own country. I know that we ought to pay full respect to the opposition of the hon. Member for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald), but the Select Committee to whom this Bill will be referred will be amply able to deal with the points which the hon. Member raised. Last year the Scottish Members voted four to one in favour of this Measure. The whole of the Highland Members of Parliament, with the exception of the hon. Member opposite, voted for the Bill. The whole of the Inverness County Council—and after all, they are the people who are in closest touch with the people of Inverness—ineluding the people who represent the district in which these works will be, are in favour of this Measure. In these circumstances I do say that we who are supporting it are entitled to speak to the House in the name of the Highland people and of the people who will benefit by this Bill, and to plead with the House to give the Highlands this chance of developing

their natural resources. The Highlands do not want to remain merely the pleasure ground of the rich; they want the opportunity of developing their own resources and of reviving what is now a dying race.
The hon. Member for Maryhill said that we ought to have natural development. What development could be more natural than the harnessing of the rivers and lochs and streams that flow through the Highlands of Scotland? What nonsense it is to talk about the unfitness of the Highlander for industrial work. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Bridgeton will contradict me when I say that there are probably more Highlanders in the city of Glasgow than there are in some Highland counties to-day engaged in industrial activities, and doing their job well. In the Highlands now we have got, for example in Brora in the county of Sutherland, where I come from, what I believe is the right development for the Highlands, and for other rural parts of the country; we have got a little group of industries set down in the middle of a country district. We have got a little coal mine and a tile works and a wool works, and the people who work in these industrial occupations provide a market for the crofters and for the others who live there. There have for long been these industries in the Highlands. For a long time we had a linen industry until it went South. There was a spinning industry where they used to spin the linen, and ray hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) reminds me about Harris tweed.
It is absurd to say that the Highlander is unaccustomed to these industrial activities, or that it is unnatural for him to be engaged in them. It is mortifying to anyone coming from the Highlands to read this literature circulated by busybodies who have very little to do with the Highlands, who come down for a very few weeks in the year, and form themselves into committees with high-sounding titles, telling us that the beauties and the historic interest of the Highlands should be respected. The people in those districts know that unless we get this opportunity we shall get no other. It is no good the hon. Member for Maryhill talking about little industries and about agriculture. Either we get this chance or we get none. I, therefore, appeal to the House to give us this opportunity for al development on natural lines.
Down these straths in Inverness-shire at the present time, this water is flowing uselessly to waste. I dare say a few anglers fish in these rivers and they have a few ghillies with them and perhaps there are a few tourists, but it is a great mistake to suppose that a development of this kind will frighten away the tourists. On the contrary, there has been, if anything, an increase in the tourist traffic in those parts of Inverness-shire where the development of the British Aluminium Company and other developments have taken place. So far from making the countryside hideous, they have made it more beautiful by the lovely little garden villages which have been constructed for the people who are employed in those works. Considerable numbers of Highlanders are employed there and these developments have, indeed, made the Highlands more attractive rather than less attractive. Why should not these waters which are now flowing uselessly, be harnessed for the production of wealth and the needs of national defence, and give a few hundred Highlanders the means of living and an opportunity to strike their roots into the soil? The hon. Member for Maryhill spoke of from

300 to 500, but with their families, that would mean 1,000 or 1,500 more people living on the soil of their native land.

I, therefore, appeal to hon. Members to consider the importance of this issue. It is an issue in which the safety of the country and the future of the Highland race is involved, and I plead with the House to pass this Bill.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: Commander Sir Archibald Southby rose——

Mr. Boothby: Mr. Boothby  rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Mr. Speaker: I think the House is ready to come to a decision.

Mr. Fleming: Mr. Fleming rose——

Mr. Boothby: Mr. Boothby rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 227.

Division No. 166.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Edge, Sir W.
Kirkwood, D.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Elliot, Rt. Han. W. E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Law, R. K. (H&lt;ob/&gt;ll, S.W.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Atholl, Duchess of
Everard, W. L.
Leonard, W.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Findlay, Sir E.
Lindsay, K. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Foot, D. M.
Lloyd, G. W.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Barr, J.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
M'Connell, Sir J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Garro Jones, G. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Bernays, R. H.
Gibson, R. (Greonock)
McGovern, J.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Blair, Sir R.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
MacMillan, M. (Western Islet)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Grimston, R. V.
Macquisten, F. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Grillen, W. G. Howard
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Broad, F. A.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Mathers, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Maxton, J.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Buchanan G.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Harvey, Sir G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.


Butcher H. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry



Higgs, W. F.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Nall, Sir J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack. N.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hulbert, N. J.
Parker, J.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hunter, T.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Radford, E. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cove, W. G.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Remer, J. R.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Culverwell, C. T.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Doland, G. F.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.




Salt, E. W.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Wells, S. R.


Scott, Lord William
Tate, Mavis C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Thomas, J. P. L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Thurtle, E.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Train, Sir J.



Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stephen, C.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Marquess of Clydesdale and


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Watson, W. McL.
Mr. Boothby.


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, K.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Gallacher, W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Adamson, W. M.
Goldie, N. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Agnaw, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Munro, P.



Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Naylor, T. E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Assheton, R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. G. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Oliver, G. H.


Balniel, Lord
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Owen, Major G.


Barnes, A. J.
Groves, T. E.
Paling, W.


Batey, J.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Beechman, N. A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Patrick, C. M.


Benson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Peake, O.


Bevan, A.
Hardie, Agnes
Peat, C. U.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Perkins, W. R. D.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Petherick, M.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. G. (Newbury)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pritt, D. N.


Cape, T.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Procter, Major H. A.


Cassells, T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Channon, H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Charleton, H. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Chater, D.

Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Holdsworth, H.
Ridley, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Holmes, J. S.
Riley, B.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hopkinson, A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jagger, J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Rowlands, G.


Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.
Joel, D. J. B.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
John, W.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cross, R. H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Crossley, A. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Savery, Sir Servington


Daggar, G.
Keeling, E. H.
Sexton, T. M.


Dalton, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Latham, Sir P.
Silverman, S. S.


Day, H.
Lathan, G.
Simpson, F. B.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Donner, P. W
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lewis, O.
Sorensen, R. W


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lipson, D. L.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Little, Sir E. Graham-
Spens, W. P.


Duggan, H. J.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Eastwood, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Eckersley. P. T.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McKie, J. H.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Tichfield, Marquess of


Ellis, Sir G.
Maclean, N.
Tomlinson, G.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Magnay, T.
Viant, S. P.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maitland. A.
Walkden, A. G.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Manningham Buller, Sir M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fleming, E. L.
Marshall, F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Furness, S. N.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Waterhouse, Captain C.







Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Wayland, Sir W. A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Westwood, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)



Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
TELLERS FOU THE NOES.—


Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Wise, A. R.
Sir Murdoch MacDonald and


Wilkinson, Ellen
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Visoount
Mr. J. Davidson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1938.

CLASS VII.

LABOUR AND HEALTH BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Postponed Proceedings resumed on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £278,650, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of labour and health buildings, Great Britain.

Question again proposed.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Viant: Large sums of money are mentioned in this Vote, and I should like to know whether the Minister can give a little information concerning certain of them. On a number of occasions in the last two years questions have been raised in connection with the rebuilding and adaptation of buildings for Employment Exchanges. I find on page 16 of the Estimates that there is an expenditure of £16,920 in connection with the exchange at Ashton-under-Lyme; at Bath, £15,650; at Cardiff, £33,250; and from the list I have extracted Manchester £102,000 and Newcastle £93,590. The Committee is entitled to have some information in connection with this expenditure permitting us to appreciate why it is embarked upon. In some cases, I presume, it is the intention of the Department to erect new exchanges and in others that old exchanges are to be rearranged and adapted.
In previous Debates one of the questions that have arisen is that of conveniences in the new exchanges. The Department has said it was a matter for the local

authority. I agree that the officials at the exchanges endeavour to meet this point, but in spite of their arranging a rota system for men and women who have to attend to sign the register and to receive their payments there are occasions when persons who have come a long way have to wait at the exchanges. We feel that when new exchanges are built or old ones altered they should be made as much social centres as possible, and provide the necessary conveniences for men and women. In view of the promises made last year I should like to know whether the suggestions then made are to be accepted. At Hounslow there is to be an expenditure of £15,370 on an occasional centre. I should like to know whether we have a centre there already, and whether this expenditure is for its extension or adaptation, or is for a new centre. On page 32 there is an expenditure of £500,000 for the Moss-side Institution of the Board of Control. Is that to be a new building or an extension? In the West End of London there is to be an expenditure of £101,500. Is that for a new exchange, or in connection with an existing exchange, or is it for some special exchange in connection with the industries carried on in the West End? I had intended to raise a number of other points, but in view of the lateness of the hour I will content myself with replies to these.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: There are one or two questions I should like to ask on these Estimates. On page 14 there is an increase of £580 for rents of Employment Exchanges and other buildings, but I want to draw attention to a saving of £26 in rent on a sub-office in a little place where I live, Rishton, in the Blackburn area. Some time ago, when trade was bad, an office was opened in a schoolroom and was in use for many years. Later, in spite of opposition, the Ministry partially closed that office, so that now it is open for only two days a week. The saving in rent is 10s. a week, but while such a saving may appeal to the Government from the point of view of economy, it has only been effected at the cost of great inconvenience to the


people in that little town, who are now compelled to walk 2½ miles, very often, in order to register when they become unemployed. The regular attenders, if I may so call them, attend at the office on Wednesdays.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Office of Works is not responsible for those arrangements. If he wishes to raise such points he must wait for the Vote of the Ministry of Labour. The Office of Works merely acts as an agent to do what is requested. He cannot on this Vote raise the question of whether or not that office should be open.

Mr. Tomlinson: Well, then, may I ask the Office of Works to inquire into the saving of rent in the district I have mentioned? On the question of new buildings, I take it that the Office of Works are acting for the Ministry of Labour and that they will have something to say about the design of these buildings. While we are spending such a large sum of money on new exchanges in various parts of the country I would put in a plea for something of the drabness to be taken away from these buildings. I have in mind an exchange which was built in Farnworth not many years ago. Although the local authority of the town at that time had been taking down old buildings and erecting or re-erecting houses of a pleasing design, yet in a particularly drab part of the township an employment exchange was put up looking like a gaol. If the unemployed are compelled to attend, these places should look less like gaols and more like municipal buildings. I am not complaining about the cost, and I do not think that these places should be elaborate, but the design could be improved without adding to the cost.
I have very little fault to find with the amenities in the exchanges, and particularly so far as the staff are concerned, but when plans are being drawn up for new exchanges, and where it is found necessary that people should stand in queues, some attempt should be made to provide shelters. The question of conveniences ought to be considered also, in the interests of the people who go there. Who is responsible for co-ordination of the duties performed by the Unemployment Assistance Board and the Employment Exchanges? In the district which I first mentioned, people have to go, for

unemployment insurance purposes, to the Exchange in Rishton, or, if there is an appeal pending, to Blackburn, whereas for unemployment assistance purposes some people have to go to Accrington. If the work were co-ordinated we might save money on the buildings. I notice in Vote 7 a question relating to the Board of Education and the purchase of a site for £20,000, for the provision of a national training college.

The Deputy-Chairman: That matter does not arise on this Vote.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am sorry. All that is under the Board of Trade.

Mr. Paling: On the matter of removals mentioned on page 24 I should like to know what has happened. The only other point is that on the next page, with regard to training and instructional centres. Is the right hon. Gentleman providing buildings as fast as the policy requires?

11.25 p.m.

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling), the work at Wombwell for which the sum of £1,000 was voted last year has been deferred. With regard to training centres, we are proceeding as fast as we can with the work required. The hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Tomlinson) raised a matter of which I am not fully seized, but I will certainly look into it and do what I can to obtain the necessary information. The hon. Member raised a point with regard to the design of the buildings which are being put up for Employment Exchanges. The one that he mentioned is, of course, an old building, which was put up some considerable time ago. In the case of the ordinary buildings that are now being put up, every possible care is being taken to make them as seemly and attractive as possible. I myself have taken great interest in this matter, and make a point of seeing every elevation before it goes up. I think it is the general opinion that the buildings that are being put up all over the country are of a type that will be an asset to the appearance of our towns, and everything is done, not only to make them look attractive, but to make them fit in with the surroundings of the particular towns in which they are.
The hon. Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) quite rightly takes an interest in the question of shelters and conveniences at Employment Exchanges. He knows the difficulties with which we have been faced in this matter, and I am sure he will be glad that I can give him a definite assurance that, in every case where a new building is put up, there will be a shelter for use in the rush hour or when, perhaps, it is raining and there are more applicants than can be found room for in the building. As regards conveniences, we are putting them into all new buildings except where there is a public convenience close by, and in various places the insured population is small, and where it is not possible at the moment. Our policy is in complete accord with the wishes of the hon. Member, and his advocacy in the past has greatly helped towards the desired end.
He will see that there is a big scheme for an Employment Exchange in the West End of London, the idea being that it should be available for people in trade in that district—needleworkers, theatrical people, film workers and the like, and also domestic servants. Owing to its size, the scheme has been slightly delayed, as we have had to consider the plans very carefully, but we hope to go ahead as soon as we can get the plans settled. At Moss Side there is an extension of the organisation, and I hope that during the next few years we may be able to do what is really essential, namely, to provide accommodation for at least another 700 patients.
In regard to the Hounslow Vocational Centre, which was referred to by the hon. Member for West Willesden, that is an extension to an existing building, and the purpose of it is to train ex-service men in civil life. It is at present under the War Office, and we think it should be put under the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Graham White: Does the policy in regard to shelters at new exchanges exclude the possibility of erecting them at some of the existing exchanges?

Sir P. Sassoon: No, Sir. We are going to try to put them in, except where it is impossible to do so.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: We are very much indebted to the Minister for his observations on the preservation of amenities and the improvement of architectural features in the newer buildings. I have observed in the north of England a distinct change for the better. Rather than having one's spirits depressed by the appearance of these buildings a contrary feeling is created, and that is all to the good. One cannot raise now the question of the elimination of the smoke nuisance in public buildings. On another occasion we may do that. But I know the Minister has that subject well before him. In view of the very substantial increase in the expenditure on new works, and additions this year generally in the report before us, I wonder whether the Minister has postponed, as far as is practicable, any expenditure to a time when employment will be less general than at present. I noticed that, at the instance of the Ministry of Labour, one of the great railways has decided to postpone the expenditure of £2,250,000 to a time when it is anticipated that there may be a considerable amount of unemployment. Is the Office of Works acting in a similar fashion?

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, Sir; that is so.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £278,650, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of labour and health buildings, Great Britain.

MISCELLANEOUS LEGAL BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £95,285, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of miscellaneous legal buildings, including the whole additional cost of a new Sheriff Court House at Edinburgh." —[Note.— £59,000 has been voted on account.]

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Paling: On page 37 there is an item of £1,500 for the purchase of site and erection of building for county court and offices at Doncaster. Does that indicate that it has been completed?

Sir P. Sassoon: Yes, that has been completed.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS, GREAT BRITAIN.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,381,265, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of sundry public buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including historic buildings, ancient monuments, Brompton Cemetery and certain housing estates. "—[Note.—£691,000 has been voted on account.]

PUBLIC BUILDINGS OVERSEAS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £157,185, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of public buildings overseas"—[Note.— £79,000 has been voted on account.]

REVENUE BUILDINGS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,294,470, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1939, for expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and telegraph buildings in Great Britain, certain post offices abroad, and for certain expenses in connection with boats and launches belonging to the Customs and Excise Department."— [Note.— £647,000 has been voted on account.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — COLLECTING CHARITIES REGULATION) BILL [Lords].

Ordered, That so much of the Lords Message [31st March] as relates to the appointment of a Committee on the Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill [Lords] be now considered.—[Captain Margesson.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, That a Select Committee of Six Members be appointed to join with

the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the Collecting Charities (Regulation) Bill [Lords].

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.

Committee nominated of,—Mr. Rostron Duckworth, Mr. Liddall, Mr. Maitland, Major Milner, Mr. George Morrison, and Mr. R. C. Morrison.—[Captain Margesson.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — CHURCH OF ENGLAND ASSEMBLY (POWERS) ACT, 1919.

11.39 p.m.

Sir John Haslam: I beg to move,
That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Marriage (Licensing of Chapels) Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.'

Major Sir John Birchall: I beg to second the Motion.

Lieut.-Commander Agnew: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Guildford Cathedral Measure, 1938, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to second the Motion.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.